Sports Betting Ban Targets Kalshi and Polymarket in Bombshell Bipartisan Bill
A sweeping new bill introduced in the United States Senate on March 24, 2026 could shut the door on sports wagering at two of the most talked-about prediction market platforms in the country. Senators from opposite sides of the aisle are joining forces to take on Kalshi and Polymarket, arguing that these federally regulated platforms have been quietly running sports gambling operations without the oversight that state-licensed sportsbooks are required to follow. If you have been wondering whether prediction markets are legal for sports betting — the answer is now being challenged at the highest level.
 |
| Credit: Leo Patrizi / Getty Images |
What the Bipartisan Bill Actually Does
Senators Adam Schiff of California and John Curtis of Utah introduced the bill together, making it one of the more unusual political alliances of the year. The legislation would specifically prohibit Kalshi and Polymarket from allowing users to place money on sports events or engage in casino-style gaming contracts. Importantly, the bill would not touch platforms like those regulated by individual states, which already operate under a patchwork of state gambling laws. The senators are targeting a legal loophole that has allowed prediction market platforms to exist in a gray area under federal commodity trading rules rather than gambling regulations. The core argument is simple: if it looks like a sports bet and pays out like a sports bet, it should be regulated like one.
Why Prediction Markets Are Being Called Out
Kalshi and Polymarket are regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not state gaming commissions. That distinction has allowed them to operate in all fifty states simultaneously, bypassing the complex web of state-level gambling laws that govern traditional sportsbooks. Senator Schiff put it bluntly, saying that sports prediction contracts are sports bets, just with a different name. This framing is significant because it reframes the entire debate away from financial derivatives and toward consumer protection and gambling law. The senators argue that no meaningful difference exists in practice between placing a bet through a federally regulated prediction market app versus a state-licensed sportsbook.
A Billion-Dollar Industry Under the Microscope
The scale of this industry makes the legislation feel both urgent and overdue. Kalshi's Super Bowl trading volume alone crossed one billion dollars earlier this year, representing a staggering 2,700 percent increase compared to the previous year. To understand how dramatic that growth is, consider that total United States sports wagers grew from roughly 4.9 billion dollars in 2017 to over 121 billion dollars in 2023 following a 2018 Supreme Court decision that opened the door for states to legalize sports betting. Prediction markets have been riding that same wave of cultural normalization around sports gambling, but without the same regulatory guardrails. The bill is essentially an attempt to close that gap before the industry grows any larger.
The Gambling Addiction Crisis Driving Political Action
Senator Curtis, a Republican from Utah — a state with historically strict gambling laws — framed his support for the bill around protecting young people. He expressed deep concern that too many young residents in his state are being exposed to addictive sports betting and casino-style gaming through these federally overseen apps. His concerns are backed by data. Researchers at a major California university analyzed online search behavior and found that when online sportsbooks became available in a given area, searches for gambling addiction help jumped by 61 percent and have continued to rise. That figure alone tells a troubling story about what happens when betting becomes frictionless, mobile, and always available.
Kalshi Fires Back: This Is About Competition, Not Consumer Safety
Kalshi did not take the news quietly. The company's spokesperson pushed back hard, calling the bill a product of casino industry lobbying rather than genuine concern for users. The company argued that established gambling businesses are simply trying to protect their market share by eliminating a digital competitor. This response positions Kalshi not as a rogue bad actor but as a disruptive startup being squeezed out by legacy industries with political connections. Whether that framing resonates with lawmakers or the public remains to be seen, but it is a calculated and aggressive counter-narrative. Polymarket, for its part, did not respond to media requests for comment.
Legal Trouble Was Already Piling Up for Kalshi
The bill arrives at a particularly difficult moment for Kalshi, which was already navigating a series of legal headaches before the Senate announcement. The platform is currently banned in Nevada on a temporary basis and is facing criminal charges in Arizona. These developments suggest that regulatory pressure on prediction markets has been building for months, and the bipartisan Senate bill may be the largest and most visible manifestation of that pressure yet. For a company that has grown explosively and built a reputation on operating at the edge of existing regulations, this convergence of legal threats is a genuine test of resilience.
Both Platforms Are Now Scrambling to Self-Regulate
In what appears to be more than coincidental timing, Kalshi announced on the same day the bill dropped that it is rolling out new screening features specifically designed to detect and prevent insider trading in sports and politics markets. The platform said it worked with a compliance partner to build lists of professional and collegiate athletes, officials, and staff who will be automatically blocked from trading on events they are associated with. This self-regulatory move follows a genuinely embarrassing incident last month in which a candidate for political office was caught trading on his own race and had to be suspended and fined. A social media personality's editor was also found to have used inside knowledge about upcoming announcements to profit on the platform.
Polymarket updated its own platform rules on the same day, drawing explicit lines to prohibit users from betting with stolen confidential information, acting on illegal tips, or placing wagers on outcomes they are in a position to influence. The coordinated timing of these announcements from both companies suggests that the industry knew the bill was coming and moved quickly to demonstrate accountability before the headlines landed.
What Happens Next and Why It Matters
This legislation is still in its early stages and faces a long road through the Senate and potential House review before it could become law. But its bipartisan nature gives it more credibility and forward momentum than a single-party effort would have. The bill also raises larger questions about how financial regulators, gambling regulators, and lawmakers will collectively define the boundary between prediction markets as legitimate financial instruments and prediction markets as thinly veiled gambling products. That definitional question has massive implications not just for sports betting but for political prediction markets, economic forecasting platforms, and the broader future of wagering in a digital-first economy.
The prediction market industry built much of its credibility on election forecasting, where platforms like Polymarket gained international recognition for the accuracy of their contract prices during major political events. Extending that model to sports was a natural commercial expansion. But it is also the expansion that put these companies directly in the crosshairs of both gambling regulators and now federal legislators. The bill from Schiff and Curtis is a signal that the window for operating in that gray zone may be closing faster than the industry expected.
For everyday users who have been using these platforms to place sports-related trades, the practical outcome depends entirely on how quickly the legislation moves and whether courts weigh in before or after any law is passed. For now, both platforms remain operational. But the regulatory environment around prediction markets has shifted in a matter of days, and the next few months will likely define whether these platforms become a permanent fixture of American financial and sports culture or a cautionary tale about growing too fast in the wrong regulatory lane.
