Baltimore Takes Legal Action Against Sports Prediction Markets

cryptonews.ruPublished on 2026-08-13Last updated on 2026-08-13

Abstract

Baltimore and its mayor, Brendan Scott, have filed lawsuits against prediction market platforms Kalshi and Polymarket, alleging they operate as illegal, unlicensed sports betting platforms in violation of local gambling laws. The lawsuits contend that the platforms' event contracts are unlawful wagers under state law, misleading users about their legality. Baltimore specifically named Robinhood, Webull, and Coinbase as partners in the Kalshi suit, accusing all companies of unfair practices by advertising these products as legal in Maryland. The case highlights a growing conflict between state and federal authorities in the U.S., with many expecting it to reach the Supreme Court. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the companies argue these event contracts are regulated "swaps" under federal jurisdiction. In response, a Polymarket spokesperson stated that city-level actions contradict the established federal regulatory framework for CFTC-registered prediction markets.

Baltimore and its mayor, Brendan Scott, have filed lawsuits against Kalshi and Polymarket, alleging the companies violated local gambling laws.

In a notice published on Thursday, the Baltimore Mayor's Office stated that the two prediction market platforms operated as "illegal, unlicensed sports betting platforms" and misled users about "the legality and regulated status of their products." The lawsuits challenge Kalshi and Polymarket's interpretation of event contracts: according to the plaintiffs' arguments, such transactions constitute illegal wagers under state law.

"These companies are running sportsbooks without licenses and hoping a new label will put them above the law," Scott stated. "It won't. Baltimore will not allow multibillion-dollar companies to put profits over people and harm our communities through illegal gambling."

Baltimore's lawsuit against Kalshi lists Robinhood, Webull, and Coinbase as partners of the prediction market platform. The city accused all companies of unfair practices: they advertised sports contracts as instruments that could be "legally bought and sold in Maryland."

The legal action against the prediction market companies marks another conflict between state and federal authorities in the United States. Many experts expect the case to reach the Supreme Court. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), chaired by Michael Selig, and the companies have argued that event contracts on prediction markets constitute "swaps" falling under its regulatory purview. Baltimore's lawsuits, along with statements from other state authorities, challenge this assertion.

"Local-level actions contradict the established CFTC regulatory framework for prediction markets," a Polymarket representative stated in a comment to Cointelegraph regarding the lawsuit. "As courts have recognized, prediction markets on CFTC-registered exchanges are regulated by federal law, not a patchwork of state and local regulations."

Related: Court Stays CFTC Case Against US Service Member Over Prediction Market Bets

Related Questions

QWhat legal action has the city of Baltimore taken against Kalshi and Polymarket, and why?

ABaltimore and its mayor, Brendan Scott, have filed lawsuits against Kalshi and Polymarket, alleging that the companies violated local gambling laws by operating as illegal, unlicensed sports betting platforms and misleading users about the legality of their products.

QWhat specific argument does Baltimore make regarding the contracts offered by Kalshi and Polymarket?

ABaltimore argues that the event contracts offered by Kalshi and Polymarket are illegal wagers under state law, not legitimate financial instruments as the companies portray them.

QAccording to the article, what larger regulatory conflict do the Baltimore lawsuits represent?

AThe lawsuits represent a conflict between state/local authorities and federal regulators. The CFTC claims event contracts on prediction markets fall under its jurisdiction as 'swaps,' while state and local governments like Baltimore challenge this federal oversight.

QWhich major financial platforms are named as partners of Kalshi in Baltimore's lawsuit?

ABaltimore's lawsuit against Kalshi names Robinhood, Webull, and Coinbase as partners of the platform, accusing all companies of unfair practices in advertising sports contracts.

QWhat is Polymarket's defense against Baltimore's lawsuit, as cited in the article?

APolymarket argues that CFTC-registered prediction markets are governed by federal law, not a patchwork of state and local regulations, and that city-level actions contradict the established federal regulatory framework.

Related Reads

‘White hats’ take 4000 BTC from Liquid, ETFs see best week of 2026: Hodler’s Digest

A purported "white hat" hacking group has withdrawn nearly 4,000 BTC (worth $319 million) from the Blockstream-run Liquid Network sidechain, leaving a message to "contact us on chain." The network has been paused as its team investigates the security breach and negotiates for the funds' return. Analysis suggests the transaction pattern is more consistent with a white hat extraction than a theft. In other news, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs saw their strongest three-week inflow stretch of 2026, attracting a net $3.8 billion. Meanwhile, AMC's CEO Adam Aron has threatened legal action against Robinhood's Ethereum L2 for tokenizing AMC stock without permission, sparking a public feud. A consortium of 21 major financial institutions, including Bank of America and Goldman Sachs, plans to launch a USD-denominated stablecoin in the first half of 2027. Prediction market platform Kalshi has issued a lifetime ban to former lawmaker George Santos for alleged insider trading, while facing a legal challenge from New Jersey over state jurisdiction. Bitcoin traded around $80,234 at week's end. Arthur Hayes predicted Bitcoin could reach $1 million by 2030 but stated his best risk-adjusted bet is currently Ethereum. The IMF reported El Salvador used private donations, not public funds, for recent Bitcoin accumulation, a claim President Bukele disputes. A fake Claude desktop app is spreading crypto-stealing malware, and Hyperscale Data has ended Bitcoin mining in Michigan to convert the site for AI operations.

cointelegraph29m ago

‘White hats’ take 4000 BTC from Liquid, ETFs see best week of 2026: Hodler’s Digest

cointelegraph29m ago

Robinhood Chain Fees Spark Debate Over Business Models: To Be a Tenant or a Landlord?

A public debate erupted over the weekend of September 5th regarding the fee model of Robinhood Chain, highlighting a fundamental conflict between two blockchain philosophies: Solana's "lowest Gas" approach versus Arbitrum's focus on "finding a sustainable business model." Robinhood Chain, an L2 built on Arbitrum Orbit that launched in July 2026, saw its average Gas fee rise to around $0.40 as transaction volume grew—over 100 times more expensive than Solana and even double Ethereum's mainnet cost. Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko ("Toly") criticized this model, arguing that the 10% of net protocol revenue Robinhood shares with the Arbitrum ecosystem (with 90% retained) could cover quadruple the fees on Solana. He contended that applications, not the base layer, should charge users, with the base layer focusing on ultra-low costs. In response, Offchain Labs co-founder Steven Goldfeder defended the Arbitrum model. He stated that by operating its own sequencer, Robinhood captures 90% of the Gas revenue—acting as a "landlord"—whereas on Solana, all fees go to validators, leaving Robinhood as a "tenant" that would have to subsidize user costs out of pocket. This exchange framed the core debate: should chains be free with applications monetizing, or should chains themselves capture value? The discussion broadened with contributions from Nina Rong (BNB Chain Growth Lead and former Arbitrum employee), who argued that endlessly lowering Gas is no longer the top priority. The industry must establish sustainable business models—whether through fees, revenue sharing, or other agreements—to ensure long-term viability beyond reliance on foundation grants. The debate underscores two diverging paths: 1. **Solana's "Ultra-Low Cost + Ecosystem Flywheel":** Prioritizes high throughput and minimal fees to attract users and applications. Value capture for apps happens off-chain (e.g., front-end fees, subscriptions). 2. **Arbitrum's "Customizable App-Chain + Revenue Share":** Allows projects to launch their own chains, control sequencers, and retain most fee revenue while sharing a portion with the parent ecosystem, creating a clearer business闭环 for large entities like Robinhood. An underlying issue is Ethereum's minimal value capture. While Robinhood Chain settles on Ethereum, over 99.99% of the fees are retained by Robinhood and Arbitrum, with only a tiny fraction going to Ethereum for data availability and security—posing a long-term challenge for the mainnet's security budget. The conclusion is that the industry is moving beyond a simple "cheapest Gas" competition. The real challenge is finding a sustainable balance between user experience, infrastructure profitability, and security incentives. The winners will be those who successfully navigate this complex trilemma.

marsbit33m ago

Robinhood Chain Fees Spark Debate Over Business Models: To Be a Tenant or a Landlord?

marsbit33m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片