City of Baltimore goes after prediction markets for sports betting

cointelegraphPublished on 2026-08-13Last updated on 2026-08-13

Abstract

The City of Baltimore and Mayor Brendan Scott have filed lawsuits against prediction market platforms Kalshi and Polymarket. The city alleges these companies operate illegal, unlicensed sports-betting platforms that mislead users about the legality of their products. Officials argue that event contracts traded on these platforms constitute unlawful wagers under Maryland state law, not legitimate financial instruments. The complaint also names Robinhood, Webull, and Coinbase as partners in these alleged deceptive practices. This action represents a significant clash between state authorities and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which asserts regulatory jurisdiction over such markets, classifying event contracts as "swaps." A Polymarket spokesperson countered that the city's lawsuit contradicts the established federal regulatory framework. Legal experts anticipate the conflict may ultimately require a Supreme Court resolution.

The City of Baltimore and its mayor, Brendan Scott, filed lawsuits against Kalshi and Polymarket over allegations that the companies violated local gambling laws.

In a Thursday notice, the Baltimore mayor’s office said that the two prediction market companies operated “illegal, unlicensed sports-betting platforms” and misled users about the ”legality and regulatory status of their products.” The lawsuits are centered on claims disputing Kalshi’s and Polymarket’s characterization of event contracts, arguing that the trades amount to unlawful wagers under state laws.

“These companies are running sportsbooks without licenses and betting that a new label will put them above the law,” said Scott. “It won’t. Baltimore will not let multibillion-dollar companies put profits over people and harm our communities through illegal gambling.”

Notably, the city’s complaint against Kalshi included Robinhood, Webull and Coinbase as partners with the prediction market platform. All companies were accused of deceptive practices by marketing sports contracts as something that can ”lawfully be purchased and traded in Maryland.”

The legal action against prediction market companies was the latest conflict between US state and federal authorities, and many experts expect it to end with an appeal to the Supreme Court. The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), under Chair Michael Selig, and companies have argued that event contracts on prediction markets amount to “swaps” within its purview, while both Baltimore lawsuits and other state-level authorities dispute that claim.

“City-specific action runs counter to the CFTC’s established framework for regulating prediction markets,“ a Polymarket spokesperson told Cointelegraph in response to the lawsuit. “As courts have recognized, prediction markets on CFTC-registered exchanges are governed by federal law, not a patchwork of state and local rules.”

Related: Judge stays CFTC’s case against US soldier over prediction market bets

Related Questions

QWhat is the main legal allegation against Kalshi and Polymarket by the City of Baltimore?

AThe City of Baltimore alleges that Kalshi and Polymarket operated illegal, unlicensed sports-betting platforms and misled users about the legality and regulatory status of their products, arguing that their event contracts constitute unlawful wagers under state laws.

QWhich companies were named as partners of Kalshi in the city's complaint?

AThe city's complaint against Kalshi named Robinhood, Webull, and Coinbase as partners with the prediction market platform.

QWhat core regulatory argument do prediction market companies and the CFTC make in their defense?

APrediction market companies and the CFTC argue that event contracts on these platforms amount to 'swaps,' which fall under federal regulatory purview and the CFTC's established framework, not state or local gambling laws.

QAccording to Mayor Brendan Scott, what motivates the city's legal action against these companies?

AMayor Brendan Scott stated that the city will not let multibillion-dollar companies put profits over people and harm communities through illegal gambling, implying the action is to protect the public from unlicensed gambling operations.

QWhat broader legal conflict does the article suggest this case is a part of?

AThe article suggests this case is part of the latest conflict between US state/federal authorities over the classification and regulation of prediction markets, with many experts expecting it could ultimately be appealed to the Supreme Court.

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.

cointelegraph26m ago

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

cointelegraph26m 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.

marsbit31m ago

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

marsbit31m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片