Moineauworld

Tag: NPRM

CFTC vs States: Battle for Prediction | Analysis by Brian Moineau

Posted on by Brian Moineau

TL;DR

  • The CFTC just proposed a rule to codify what prediction markets can list, carving out a path for sports contracts while drawing a hard line against wagers tied to war, terrorism, assassination, and other “enumerated activities” under Section 5c(c)(5)(C) of the Commodity Exchange Act. [1][2]
  • If even 5% of 2025’s $166.94B U.S. sportsbook handle migrates to CFTC‑regulated venues, that’s an ~$8.35B swing in notional volume and a meaningful new revenue stream for exchanges like Kalshi; state sportsbooks will fight to keep it. [2][4][8]
  • The real battle is jurisdiction: a one‑commissioner CFTC under President Trump is asserting exclusive federal authority over prediction markets, setting up court fights with state gaming regulators that will shape who gets the economics—and the rules. [2][3][6][7]

What the source said

In June 2026, the Wall Street Journal reported that a Trump‑led CFTC plans to clarify what prediction markets may legally offer via a new rule that defines a review process and the “public interest” standard. The Journal said sports contracts would largely be permissible, whereas wagers tied to sensitive topics—wars, terrorism, assassinations—would be restricted as “enumerated activities.” The move targets ambiguity that has fueled lawsuits and uneven enforcement across platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket since at least 2012. The proposal opens a formal public comment period and tees up federal–state clashes over whether event contracts sit under the Commodity Exchange Act or state gambling codes. [1]

Why it matters

Two ecosystems collide: federally regulated derivatives exchanges such as Kalshi (a DCM under the CEA) and state‑regulated sportsbooks like DraftKings, FanDuel, and Fanatics. The American Gaming Association reported $166.94B in 2025 U.S. sports betting handle and $16.96B in revenue, so even small share shifts matter to P&Ls and tax receipts. If CFTC‑supervised “sports trading” offers lower friction than parlay‑heavy sportsbooks, time and dollars will migrate. [4]

Regulatory turf is equally material. The CFTC’s NPRM claims these markets fall under the CEA and outlines a 90‑day contract‑by‑contract review with “public interest” factors, pitting Washington against state gaming commissions in jurisdictions like New York and Nevada. The outcome will define whether event contracts scale like futures or remain a boutique product fenced by 50 state regimes. [2][3][7]

Original analysis

Consensus read: “The CFTC is effectively legalizing prediction markets, so volumes will explode and sportsbooks will be sidelined.” My take: not so fast. The proposal mostly clarifies what’s out—the “enumerated activities” in Section 5c(c)(5)(C): terrorism, assassination, war, gaming, and illegality—and how the CFTC will decide if a contract is contrary to the public interest. It nods to many sports outcomes in principle but keeps a 90‑day federal review per listing, which tempers speed and breadth. That’s a green light, not the Autobahn. [2]

  • Back‑of‑envelope math

    • 2025 U.S. sportsbook handle: $166.94B; revenue: $16.96B. If 5% of that handle pivots to CFTC‑regulated sports event contracts by 2027, notional equals 0.05 × $166.94B = ~$8.35B. [4]
    • Exchange economics: Kalshi’s fee schedule charges cents per contract; near $0.50 mid‑prices, that maps to roughly 30–60 bps all‑in per round‑trip. On $8.35B, 0.30%–0.60% implies ~$25M–$50M in annualized fees for one venue; at 10% migration, double the range. [8][4]
    • State impact: With a typical 9%–10% sportsbook hold, $8.35B of diverted handle equates to ~$750M in lost gross gaming revenue; at 10%–20% tax rates, states forgo ~$75M–$150M per year across major markets like New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Expect hardened opposition. [4]

  • A 2×2 to read the rule’s effect (my typology)

    • Axes: Manipulability/insider risk (low↔high) vs. real‑economy/hedging utility (low↔high).
    • Low risk / high utility (Green): “NBA Finals winner,” “season‑long batting average,” “Olympic medal counts.” Expect smoother approvals: outcomes are televised, settled by third‑party stats providers, and leagues like the NBA run integrity programs. [2][3]
    • High risk / high utility (Amber): “Fed cuts by X bps next meeting,” “U.S. CPI above Y% next month.” Useful hedges but sensitive to leaks; April 2026 self‑betting by a U.S. House candidate on Kalshi underscores insider exposure that surveillance must catch. [2][9]
    • Low risk / low utility (Gray): “Celebrity pregnancy by Q4,” “new album release date.” Thin societal utility; the public‑interest test will likely deprioritize or deny. [2]
    • High risk / low utility (Red): “Assassination,” “terror incidents,” “active theater‑of‑war outcomes.” The NPRM aims to exclude these systematically under Rule 40.11. [2]

  • Historical analogue that actually predicts behavior

    • In 2012, the CFTC used a 90‑day review to block Nadex political event contracts under Rule 40.11, citing the public‑interest standard. The 2026 NPRM revives that scaffold but expressly tolerates many sports outcomes, signaling a cleaner, more durable process and fewer ad‑hoc staff letters. Expect formal dockets and repeatable screening criteria. [5][2]

  • Named‑stakeholder implications

    • Kalshi (DCM): Clearer path to list U.S. sports and macro contracts, subject to 90‑day reviews and surveillance proofs; slower than a sportsbook’s daily menu. [2]
    • Polymarket: Positive sports signaling, but U.S. scale still hinges on registration and whether federal preemption over states holds in court; bans on war/terror curtail viral tail events. [2][3]
    • DraftKings/FanDuel/Fanatics: Face a federally supervised substitute with lower take rates and different unit economics; expect lobbying and litigation to classify event contracts as “gaming.” [3][4]
    • State gaming regulators/AGA: Tax base at the margin is at risk; anticipate coordinated challenges to federal preemption and integrity claims in venues like the Second and D.C. Circuits. [3][7]
    • Leagues and data vendors (NFL/NBA, Sportradar/Stats Perform): As CFTC markets grow, official data deals and integrity MOUs may mirror futures‑market surveillance models, with per‑event fees and T+0 settlement feeds. [2][3]

Two underestimated constraints loom. First, the Commission is a one‑member shop under Chair Michael S. Selig, which invites process challenges to any final rule and to exclusive‑jurisdiction assertions. Second, the NPRM’s 90‑day, multi‑factor, contract‑by‑contract screen will throttle the “long tail” listings that drive cult engagement, unless the CFTC standardizes families of sports contracts. Expect early volume to cluster in a few high‑liquidity markets with robust surveillance. [6][2][7]

What others are missing

Coverage has fixated on “pro‑sports, anti‑war,” but the commercial hinge is federal preemption paired with standardization. If exclusive jurisdiction survives in court, a DCM can offer a national sports product insulated from 50 state codes, while a Rule 40.11‑driven taxonomy lets brokerages such as Robinhood or Coinbase embed cash‑settled markets via APIs under federal KYC/AML. That combination enables distribution at scale and forces futures‑style surveillance across venues, rather than state patchworks. The NPRM’s 90‑day process and factor test become a template for comparable disclosures, error‑handling, and settlement sources across exchanges. [2][3][7]

What to watch next

  1. By Q4 2026, at least one top‑five U.S. sportsbook publicly partners with a CFTC‑regulated exchange or files to list a sports event contract through a DCM affiliate, seeking federal cover for nationwide distribution. [2][3]

  2. By March 2027, a federal court issues a merits ruling in a state–federal dispute that affirms or rejects the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets, materially changing venue operations in at least three states. [7]

  3. Within 12 months of the rule’s finalization in 2026, the CFTC publishes at least one determination rejecting a proposed geopolitical/violence‑adjacent contract under amended Rule 40.11, setting a binding precedent on “involve” and “public interest.” [2]

My take

This 2026 NPRM is a pragmatic swing: fence out the toxic stuff, normalize the rest under Rule 40.11 and a 90‑day review. If the CFTC finalizes cleanly and wins the preemption fight, prediction markets will look like low‑fee, high‑liquidity retail derivatives that Wall Street can distribute without state silos. I’d bet medium‑term winners are regulated exchanges that operate like brokerages and the leagues that sell them data rights. The losers are anyone betting that state‑by‑state de‑platforming can halt a national market. [2]

Sources

[1] Trump Regulator Proposes New Rules on What’s Allowed on Prediction Markets — Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/finance/regulation/trump-cftc-prediction-markets-betting-rules-1aea5c9d) — Original report that a Trump‑era CFTC is proposing formal boundaries for prediction markets, including likely bans on war/terror contracts.

[2] CFTC Seeks Public Comment on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Concerning Event Contracts Involving Enumerated Activities — CFTC (https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9249-26) — The official NPRM: 90‑day review, “public interest” factors, and the terrorism/assassination/war/gaming/illegality screen; references sports contracts.

[3] Feds move to formally allow sports “trading” on prediction markets — Axios (https://www.axios.com/2026/06/10/cftc-prediction-markets-sports-event-contract-rules) — Independent confirmation that the proposal opens a lane for sports event contracts and includes industry reaction.

[4] Commercial Gaming Revenue Hits $78.7 Billion in 2025, Driving Record $18.1 Billion in Gaming Taxes Nationwide — American Gaming Association (https://www.americangaming.org/commercial-gaming-revenue-hits-78-7-billion-in-2025-driving-record-18-1-billion-in-gaming-taxes-nationwide/) — Baseline sports betting economics: $166.94B handle and $16.96B revenue in 2025.

[5] CFTC Issues Order Prohibiting North American Derivatives Exchange’s Political Event Derivatives Contracts — CFTC (https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/6224-12) — The 2012 precedent: 90‑day review and prohibition of political event contracts under Rule 40.11.

[6] Exclusive: Prediction markets and sports betting are “two separate things,” regulator says — Axios (https://www.axios.com/2026/05/12/prediction-markets-cftc-selig-regulation) — Chair Michael S. Selig’s stance on separating prediction markets from sportsbooks; context on the one‑commissioner CFTC.

[7] CFTC Reaffirms Exclusive Jurisdiction over Prediction Markets in U.S. Circuit Court Filing — CFTC (https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9183-26) — The agency’s legal brief asserting federal preemption over prediction markets, foreshadowing court fights with states.

[8] Fee Schedule (Feb. 2026 update) — Kalshi (https://kalshi.com/docs/kalshi-fee-schedule.pdf) — Primary documentation of cents‑per‑contract trading fees used to approximate exchange‑level economics.

[9] Kalshi suspends Democratic U.S. House candidate for bet on own primary race — Axios Local (Twin Cities) (https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2026/04/22/kalshi-suspends-democratic-us-house-candidate-matt-klein-primary-race-bet) — Concrete example of insider‑trading risk the rule aims to contain.



Related update: We recently published an article that expands on this topic: read the latest post.

DOLs New Rule Redefines Worker Status | Analysis by Brian Moineau

Posted on by Brian Moineau

A clearer line — or a slipperier slope? Why the DOL’s new contractor rule matters

Imagine you run a small business and hire freelancers one week and temp workers the next. One morning you open email and see the Department of Labor has proposed a rule meant to make it “clearer” whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor. Relief — or dread — sets in, depending on whether you value flexibility or worry about legal exposure.

The DOL’s February 26, 2026, proposal rescinds the Biden-era 2024 rule and returns to a streamlined “economic reality” approach that highlights two core factors: (1) the employer’s control over the work and (2) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss from initiative or investment. The agency says the change aligns with decades of federal court precedent and aims to reduce litigation and confusion. But the move has stirred a predictable clash: business groups and many gig‑economy firms applaud the clarity and flexibility; labor advocates warn it could strip important wage-and-hour protections from millions of workers.

What the proposal does — in plain English

  • Replaces the 2024 DOL rule on classification with an analysis similar to the 2021 approach centered on the “economic reality” test.
  • Emphasizes two “core factors” as most important:
    • How much control the employer has over the worker’s tasks and work conditions.
    • Whether the worker has a realistic chance to make (or lose) money through their own initiative or investment.
  • Lists additional, secondary factors (skill level, permanence of the relationship, integration into the employer’s business).
  • Notes that actual practice matters more than what contracts say on paper.
  • Extends the same analysis to related federal statutes that use the FLSA’s definition of “employ.”
  • Opens a 60‑day public comment period closing April 28, 2026. (The DOL published the NPRM on Feb 26, 2026.)

Quick takeaways for different readers

  • For small-business owners:
    • The rule aims to make classification simpler and more predictable if finalized.
    • Expect a window for asking the DOL clarifying questions through the comment process and compliance programs.
  • For independent workers and gig economy participants:
    • The proposal could preserve or expand contractor status for many workers who value autonomy — but it also risks reducing access to minimum wage and overtime protections for others.
  • For labor advocates and employees:
    • Fewer workers classified as employees means fewer covered by wage-and-hour protections, collective bargaining leverage, and employer-provided benefits.
  • For lawyers and HR teams:
    • This will be fertile ground for litigation and for careful internal policy rewrites while the proposal moves through rulemaking.

Why the DOL framed this as “clarity” — and why clarity is complicated

The DOL’s framing rests on two arguments:

  1. Federal courts have long used a flexible economic‑reality inquiry rather than a rigid checklist, so regulations should reflect that precedent.
  2. A simpler core-factor approach reduces litigation and administrative burden for employers and helps workers know where they stand.

That logic is sensible in theory: predictable rules reduce uncertainty and compliance costs. But the devil is in the facts. Worker misclassification has two faces:

  • Some businesses genuinely misuse contractor labels to avoid overtime, payroll taxes, and benefits.
  • Some workers rely on genuine independent contracting for flexibility, higher hourly rates, and entrepreneurial control.

A rule that tilts too far toward flexibility risks enabling the first problem; a rule that tilts toward strict employee classification risks undermining the second. The 2024 rule leaned toward protecting workers by enumerating multiple factors; the 2026 proposal re-centers the analysis on control and profit/loss — factors employers often find easier to point to.

Likely effects — practical and political

  • Short term:
    • Companies that depend on contractor models (ride-hailing, delivery, certain professional services) will welcome a looser test and may pause internal reclassification drives.
    • Unions and worker-advocacy groups will mobilize public comments and legal challenges if the final rule substantially reduces employee coverage.
  • Medium term:
    • We can expect more Section-by-Section guidance requests, DOL compliance assistance calls, and possibly increased use of the PAID self-reporting program by employers uncertain about past classifications.
  • Long term:
    • The regulatory pendulum has swung several times in recent administrations. Unless Congress acts to codify a standard, future administrations or courts could reverse course again. That means businesses and workers face recurring uncertainty unless legislative clarity is achieved.

Real-world scenarios (simple illustrations)

  • A freelance graphic designer who sets her rates, works for many clients, and invests in her own software: likely independent contractor under the proposal.
  • A delivery driver required to follow company-set routes, schedules, and branding, whose earnings are largely determined by company assignments: closer to employee under the control core factor.
  • A construction subcontractor who invests in equipment and hires helpers: the profit/loss and investment factor could weigh toward independent contractor status even if they work primarily for one general contractor.

My take

The DOL’s stated goal of aligning regulations with long-standing court precedent and promoting predictability is reasonable. Businesses and independent workers deserve clearer guidance. But regulatory clarity should not become a shortcut for stripping protections. The two-core-factor approach can be useful, but success will depend on how the DOL defines and applies “control” and “opportunity for profit or loss” in practice — and on whether the agency’s examples and enforcement priorities protect vulnerable workers who lack genuine bargaining power.

The rulemaking process — public comments and later enforcement — will be the real battleground. Employers should review classification practices now, document actual working arrangements (not just contracts), and consider submitting informed comments. Workers and advocates should press the DOL to ensure the new framework doesn’t enable broad misclassification that escapes the protections Congress intended in the FLSA.

Final thoughts

This is a consequential regulatory moment with real money and livelihoods at stake. The DOL’s proposal could simplify life for many businesses and solidify independence for some workers — but it could also leave others with fewer protections. Watch the comment period (closes April 28, 2026) and the DOL’s examples closely; those details will determine whether the rule promotes honest flexibility or invites abusive classification.

Sources