Kalshi lobbying in New York as state lawmakers seek to regulate event contracts
Kalshi has increased its lobbying efforts in the state of New York as lawmakers advance proposals to regulate the fast-growing prediction market sector, according to Bloomberg Law.
Kalshi registered with the state lobbying commission on 21 February, securing a US$10,000-per-month contract with Albany firm Brown Weinraub.
According to filings, the company plans to lobby on financial services issues and legislation related to prediction markets. Rival platform Polymarket has not registered to lobby in the state.
It comes as state legislators have introduced at least three bills that would establish licensing requirements and age restrictions for platforms that allow users to trade contracts on the outcomes of future events, from political speeches to sports games.
“In the absence of clear leadership from our federal partners, states have to step up,” Senator Jeremy Cooney, a sponsor of a bill for creating a licensing framework, told Bloomberg Law. “We have to act with some level of urgency.”
New York is the largest sports betting market in the US, with revenue reaching US$2.5 billion in 2025, according to the American Gaming Association. It also estimates that gaming platforms produced more than US$18 billion nationwide.
Industry officials say proposed guardrails raise “existential questions” for prediction market companies, which are not regulated like traditional sports betting operators.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has reaffirmed its authority to police the platforms regarding insider trading allegations.
Abi Bray brings strong researching skills to the forefront of all of her writing, whether it’s the newest slots, industry trends or the ever changing legislation across the U.S, Asia and Australia, she maintains a keen eye for detail and a passion for reporting.
Verticals:
Sectors:
Topics:
Dig Deeper
Related stories
2025/10/28: Kalshi sues New York regulators over event contracts rules
2025/01/23: Prediction market Kalshi launches event contracts on sports
2026/01/13: Federal judge blocks Tennessee’s attempt to halt Kalshi sports event contracts
2026/02/02: Event contracts on Super Bowl ads raise concerns about insider trading
2025/10/28: Kalshi sues New York regulators over event contracts rules
2025/01/23: Prediction market Kalshi launches event contracts on sports
2026/01/13: Federal judge blocks Tennessee’s attempt to halt Kalshi sports event contracts
2026/02/02: Event contracts on Super Bowl ads raise concerns about insider trading
The Backstory
Behind the New York push
New York’s sudden prominence in the prediction market debate did not emerge in a vacuum. The state’s sprawling gaming footprint and muscular regulatory apparatus have made it an early arena for testing where finance ends and gambling begins. Bloomberg Law first spotlighted the acceleration when it reported Kalshi’s decision to register a $10,000-a-month lobbying contract in Albany as lawmakers weigh new licensing and age rules for event contracts. That reporting underscored how the company and its rivals are confronting a patchwork of state proposals even as they argue federal regulators already hold the pen. For a sector that trades in contracts tied to real-world outcomes, the stakes are practical and immediate: whether platforms can keep listing the kinds of markets that drive growth without being tagged as illegal sports betting.
The campaign in Albany is layered atop a broader legal contest over jurisdiction. New York’s lawmakers have floated at least three bills aimed at clarifying who can offer prediction contracts and to whom. Those proposals echo arguments surfacing nationwide about whether these platforms should be overseen like futures exchanges or like sportsbooks, and whether consumer protections and integrity safeguards look more like Wall Street or the casino floor. The regulatory tempo—and the industry’s response—has quickened accordingly.
Bloomberg Law’s account of the lobbying uptick is here: New York lobbying as lawmakers consider restrictions.
Federal footholds, state flashpoints
Kalshi has been building out a political infrastructure to meet the moment. The company opened a Washington office and appointed veteran strategist John Bivona to lead federal relations, a move aimed at solidifying ties on Capitol Hill and with agencies that could shape the market’s future. The expansion, as reported by The Block and summarized in Kalshi intensifies US lobbying efforts with Washington, DC, office, was framed as a bid to influence policy as volumes surge and scrutiny climbs. It also reflects a core legal thesis: that event contracts are financial instruments subject to federal commodities law, not wagers that states can shutter at will.
Courts have not delivered a uniform answer. Judges in Nevada and Massachusetts sided with state regulators, concluding certain sports event contracts fall under state gaming rules, while a Tennessee judge granted Kalshi a temporary reprieve. These rulings, recounted in the DC office coverage, hint at a near-term reality in which platforms toggle features and access state by state while asking Washington for clarity. The result is a fragmented compliance map that complicates product planning, investor expectations and user growth.
The litigation track in New York sharpened that divide. Kalshi sued the New York State Gaming Commission, arguing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets and that state enforcement oversteps. The complaint, filed in federal court with Milbank as counsel, contends Kalshi’s contracts are lawful financial products and that state actions improperly interfere with federal oversight. The company’s arguments and the broader implications are detailed in Kalshi sues New York regulators over event contracts rules.
Guardrails widen beyond Wall Street
As platforms press their federal case, states are not standing down. Utah, which bans all forms of gambling, advanced House Bill 243 to outlaw proposition bets, a category that has drawn scrutiny amid player integrity scandals and enforcement actions in other jurisdictions. The bill would explicitly expand the state’s definition of betting to include in-game prop wagers and target major sportsbook operators. It may not directly ensnare financial prediction markets like Kalshi, but it signals where lawmakers are drawing lines on event-based risk and public trust. The committee vote and context are captured in Utah lawmakers advance bill to ban prop bets.
In Massachusetts, the debate centers on whether expanding online gambling would harm brick-and-mortar casinos and the employees who work there. Wynn Resorts warned that mobile casino-style wagering could erode on-site revenue at its Encore Boston Harbor property and threaten thousands of jobs. DraftKings and its allies argue the opposite—contending that regulated online options would recapture play from the gray market and lift tax receipts by up to $200 million annually. The clash, outlined in Wynn Resorts opposes Massachusetts’ online gambling proposals, underscores a policy theme that also shadows prediction markets: whether new digital products cannibalize existing revenue or formalize activity already happening off the books, and how to balance consumer protection with economic development.
Insider risks and political optics
The legitimacy of prediction markets also hinges on perceived integrity. After online controversy over a Polymarket account’s lucrative wagers tied to U.S. policy in Venezuela, Rep. Ritchie Torres drafted the Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act of 2026, a measure that would bar federal elected officials, appointees and executive branch employees from using such platforms. The bill aims to blunt insider trading risks and the appearance of conflicts in markets that can move on privileged information. The legislative push, reported in Bill aims to prevent government officials from using prediction market platforms, raises the stakes for compliance programs and places political optics at the center of a compliance story usually told through jurisdictional charts and product menus.
Kalshi has said its rules prohibit trading on nonpublic information by insiders or decision-makers. Yet the episode illustrates how fast reputational risk can spread and how political exposure—advisers, investors, partnerships—can invite added scrutiny. That scrutiny now travels with the sector into every committee hearing and courtroom where its legal status is being defined.
Why the New York outcome matters
New York blends scale with symbolic weight. It is home to the nation’s largest sports betting market by revenue and a center of financial regulation. A state-level licensing regime for prediction markets—or a court ruling narrowing what they can offer—would reverberate nationally. The state’s approach could influence whether platforms keep listing sports-adjacent or public policy contracts, how they market to retail traders, and what surveillance and reporting tools they must deploy. It would also set expectations for rivals like Polymarket that are calibrating their legal exposure and lobbying posture in real time.
The broader trajectory is clear: as event-driven trading and gaming converge, policymakers are redrawing boundaries in the name of consumer protection, market integrity and tax policy. The back-and-forth in Albany is one front in a wider contest stretching from Washington rulemaking to statehouse bans on specific bet types. Whether federal authority preempts the most aggressive state steps—or states force platforms to tailor offerings by ZIP code—will determine how far and how fast prediction markets can scale in the United States.
