Nevada legislators introduce bill to ban sports event contracts

Charlotte Capewell

24 July 2026 at 6:16am UTC-4

COMPLETE iGAMING composite illustration

Email, LinkedIn, and more

Two Nevada lawmakers have introduced legislation that would ban prediction market platforms from offering sports betting and casino-style event contracts nationwide.

According to reports, Representatives Steven Horsford and Mark Amodei introduced the “Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act” on 23 July, targeting operators like Kalshi and Polymarket. The bill would ban contracts based on sport and casino-style games and affirm that states and tribal authorities retain the primary responsibility for regulating gambling within their jurisdictions.

Article continues below ad

The proposed bill is the latest move in an ongoing battle between gaming operators and tribes, state and federal authorities, and prediction market companies. Prediction markets are firmly proclaiming that their event contracts are under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), while opponents argue that prediction markets should be subject to the same rules and taxation as traditional sportsbooks and online casinos.

“When it looks like sports betting, it acts like sports betting, and profits from sports betting, then it should follow the same rules as every other sportsbook,” Nevada Representative Horsford told The Nevada Independent in an interview. “Regardless of which app a consumer uses, they deserve the same protection, and that has been the gold standard of regulation that Nevada has been built on, and it’s what we are working to ensure is protected.”

Prediction market operators offer a wide range of event contracts, including political, economic and cultural events. However, industry estimates supplied by the New York Times suggest that as much of 90% of their trading volume is from sports trading.

Article continues below ad

Supporters of the proposed bill include the American Gaming Association, UNITE HERE, and Culinary Workers Union Local 226. It also has a companion measure in the Senate – sponsored by Senators John Curtis, Adam Schiff and Catherine Cortez Masto – that was introduced in March.

The legislation also joins other proposals to restrict prediction markets, including bills from Representatives Dina Titus, Blake Moore, and Salud Carbajal.

Charlotte Capewell brings her passion for storytelling and expertise in writing, researching, and the gambling industry to every article she writes. Her specialties include the US gambling industry, regulator legislation, igaming, and more.

View Charlotte Capewell's bio and articles.

Locations:

Verticals:

Sectors:

Others

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

Nevada moves from enforcement to federal legislation

Nevada’s latest bill to ban sports event contracts marks an escalation in a dispute that has moved quickly from state regulatory warnings to court fights and now Congress. The measure from Reps. Steven Horsford and Mark Amodei seeks to draw a clear federal line around prediction markets by prohibiting contracts tied to sports betting and casino-style games while preserving state and tribal authority over gambling regulation.

The proposal reflects a broader concern among gaming states that prediction-market operators have found a route around licensing, taxation and consumer-protection systems built for sports betting. Platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket say their products are event contracts overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not wagers subject to state gaming law. Nevada regulators and much of the casino industry argue the practical effect is the same as sports betting, especially when users trade on the outcome of games.

The political pressure has intensified as sports contracts have become a major driver of activity on prediction platforms. Industry estimates cited in earlier reporting suggest sports may account for the overwhelming share of trading volume on some markets. That growth has turned a regulatory disagreement into a direct challenge to state gaming systems that collect taxes, enforce age restrictions and police responsible gambling standards.

Earlier bills tested the same fault line

The Horsford-Amodei bill is not the first attempt by Nevada lawmakers to restrict sports-linked contracts. In February, Rep. Dina Titus introduced the Fair Markets and Sports Integrity Act, a proposal that would amend the Commodity Exchange Act to bar platforms from offering contracts tied to the results of professional or amateur sports contests. That effort framed the issue as one of consumer protection, state revenue and the integrity of regulated betting markets.

Titus’ bill followed a surge in attention around the Super Bowl, when Kalshi reported more than $1 billion in trading volume while Nevada sportsbooks posted comparatively muted results. That contrast sharpened the question facing lawmakers: whether prediction markets were competing with sportsbooks without following the same rules. The measure also drew criticism from those who said restrictions would protect incumbent casino interests and slow innovation in federally regulated financial products.

The Nevada delegation’s latest proposal builds on that foundation but appears broader in scope, targeting both sports betting and casino-style event contracts. It also aligns with a companion effort in the Senate backed by lawmakers including Catherine Cortez Masto. Together, the bills show how the debate has shifted from whether individual markets should be approved by the CFTC to whether Congress should remove sports and gambling outcomes from the event-contract category altogether.

State regulators drew a hard boundary

Nevada regulators had already made their position explicit before the new federal bill arrived. The Nevada Gaming Control Board told licensees that it regards sports event contracts as wagers under state law, even when those contracts are listed on federally regulated exchanges. In its notice, the board said such products require a full sports pool license in Nevada and must comply with existing sports-wagering account and book-system rules.

That warning extended beyond operators directly offering contracts in Nevada. The board said licensees that partner with or affiliate with firms offering event contracts without proper authorization could face disciplinary action or have their suitability questioned. In Nevada’s regulatory system, suitability is a central concept, giving the state leverage over casinos, suppliers and executives whose conduct may affect the integrity of the industry.

The notice also showed how broadly regulators view the category. Examples included contracts tied not only to traditional sports but also to the World Series of Poker, the Oscars, esports and political elections. By treating those products as wagering, Nevada signaled that federal exchange registration would not shield operators from state enforcement if the underlying activity resembled betting.

That position has implications beyond Nevada. Other states have also raised concerns about prediction markets, and Pennsylvania’s top gaming regulator has urged lawmakers to scrutinize the CFTC’s role in the sector. Nevada’s stance matters because the state remains the symbolic and regulatory center of U.S. gambling. When it defines a product as wagering, other jurisdictions often watch closely.

Kalshi litigation sharpened the stakes

The conflict became more concrete when Nevada regulators secured a temporary court order against Kalshi. As Inside Asian Gaming reported, a Nevada court issued a short-term ban preventing the company from offering certain event-based contracts tied to sports, elections and entertainment in the state while the case proceeded. The order required Kalshi to obtain appropriate state gaming licenses and restrict access to users 21 and older if it wanted to continue offering those markets in Nevada.

Kalshi told users they could close existing positions in affected markets but not open new ones, while contracts in categories such as weather and cryptocurrency remained available. That distinction captured the central legal dispute. Weather and financial-style contracts fit more comfortably within the traditional conception of derivatives trading. Sports and entertainment outcomes, state regulators argue, look much more like gambling products.

The Nevada case added to a widening list of legal and regulatory challenges facing prediction platforms. Kalshi has faced proceedings in multiple states, while regulators have questioned markets tied to politically sensitive or high-profile events. For operators, the legal strategy rests on federal preemption: the argument that CFTC-supervised contracts should not be subject to state-by-state gambling rules. For states, the response is that Congress never intended the derivatives regulator to authorize nationwide sports betting by another name.

That unresolved legal question is why federal legislation has become so important. A court ruling in one state can restrict activity locally, but a congressional amendment to the Commodity Exchange Act could settle the issue nationally.

Industry pressure reaches Washington

The gaming industry has pushed Congress to act before prediction markets become further entrenched. In a recent letter to the Senate, groups including the American Gaming Association, the Indian Gaming Association and the Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers urged lawmakers to block sports-related event contracts. They argued the products bypass state and tribal law, weaken consumer protections and divert revenue from systems that fund public programs.

The tribal dimension is particularly important. Tribal gaming compacts often reserve gambling authority and revenue-sharing arrangements negotiated with states. A federally regulated platform offering sports contracts nationwide could be seen as undermining those agreements without tribal consent. That is one reason the new Nevada bill emphasizes that states and tribes retain primary responsibility for gambling regulation.

Labor groups also have lined up behind restrictions. UNITE HERE and Culinary Workers Union Local 226 support the latest bill, reflecting concerns that a shift away from regulated casino and sportsbook channels could affect jobs and tax bases in gaming-dependent markets. The opposition to prediction markets is therefore broader than casino operators alone, spanning regulators, tribes, unions and lawmakers from gaming states.

At the same time, the CFTC has been examining the legal status of sports event contracts and has considered rules that could permit some markets while restricting contracts vulnerable to manipulation or contrary to the public interest. That approach would keep the federal regulator at the center of the market. The bills from Nevada lawmakers would move in the opposite direction by removing sports and casino-style outcomes from permissible contract categories.

The fight is over who controls gambling’s perimeter

The prediction-market dispute is ultimately about jurisdiction. Since the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door to state-regulated sports betting in 2018, states have built licensing systems with tax rules, age limits, advertising standards and responsible-gambling requirements. Prediction platforms contend they are operating in a different legal universe, where users trade contracts on outcomes rather than place bets with a sportsbook.

That distinction may matter under commodities law, but opponents say it is too narrow for gambling policy. If a user can risk money on whether a team wins a game, regulators argue, the consumer experience and public-policy risks are substantially similar to sports betting. The absence of comparable state controls is what has driven Nevada’s enforcement posture and the new congressional push.

The stakes extend beyond sports. Casino-style event contracts, political markets and entertainment outcomes all test how far prediction platforms can go before they cross into gambling. A broad federal ban would protect the existing state and tribal model but could limit a fast-growing financial-technology sector. A permissive federal approach could expand consumer access and innovation but weaken local gambling oversight.

The Horsford-Amodei bill enters that debate at a moment when both sides are seeking a decisive forum. Courts can rule on specific disputes, and regulators can issue guidance, but Congress can redefine the boundary. For Nevada, the legislation is a bid to preserve the regulatory architecture that made the state the center of U.S. gaming. For prediction markets, it is a test of whether federal commodities law can support a national market in events that states have long treated as gambling.