New US Bill Targets Prediction Markets Over Sports and Casino Betting
US Representative Dina Titus has introduced a new bill to ban prediction market firms from offering contracts on sporting events and casino-style games. The proposed law, called the Fair Markets and Sports Integrity Act, aims to stop these firms from bypassing state gaming regulations. But the move has already sparked strong opposition from gamblers and industry groups.
Titus has been pushing against prediction markets for over a year. Her latest bill seeks to close what she sees as loopholes that allow these firms to operate outside existing gambling laws. However, the proposal does not address upcoming CFTC rules on sporting event contracts, which Chair Mike Selig is expected to introduce soon.
Gamblers have criticised the bill, arguing that prediction markets provide a necessary alternative to traditional sportsbooks. Many bettors face strict wagering limits at standard bookmakers, and these markets offer a way around those restrictions. Instead of Titus' proposal, they urge her to back the Fair Bet Act—a separate bill that would reinstate full tax deductions for gambling losses. The Fair Bet Act already has support from both political parties and major gambling trade bodies. Meanwhile, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has publicly backed Titus, calling her approach 'common sense.' The issue is growing more political, with most Washington Republicans expected to align with the current White House's pro-prediction market stance. Despite the opposition, Titus remains focused on tightening controls over prediction markets. Her bill would prevent firms from offering contracts on events like elections, awards shows, and sports—areas where critics say unregulated betting could undermine fairness.
The Fair Markets and Sports Integrity Act now faces an uphill battle, with gamblers and industry figures pushing for the Fair Bet Act instead. If passed, Titus' bill would significantly restrict prediction market operations in the US. The outcome will depend on whether lawmakers prioritise stricter oversight or tax relief for bettors.
