Rep. Dina Titus, a Nevada Democrat, introduced the Fair Markets and Sports Integrity Act two weeks ago with a pointed announcement, and this week, the language of the bill was revealed.
The bill is short. It is not, however, subtle.
H.R. 7477, introduced Feb. 10 and referred to the House Committee on Agriculture, would amend the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) to prohibit any registered entity from listing, facilitating, or clearing contracts that are based on, reference, or derive their value from sporting events or casino-style games.
In plain English: No sports events contracts and nothing resembling casino games would be allowed on prediction markets.
The legislation would add a new subsection to Section 4c of the CEA, the federal law that governs futures and derivatives markets and sits under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Broad definitions
Under the bill, a “sporting event or athletic competition” is defined broadly: “Any live, simulated, or virtual event involving physical or mental skill or athletic performance in which 1 or more participants or teams compete or face a challenge and an outcome, score, or statistical measure is determined, including amateur, intercollegiate, or professional sports.”
“Casino-style game” is defined with equal reach: “Any game customarily offered in casinos or gambling establishments, including slot machines, blackjack, roulette, craps, poker, bingo, lotteries, or any digital or simulated version of such games.”
In short, if it happens on the field, court, ice, or felt, or a digital version of either, prediction markets can’t touch it.
Operators like Kalshi have argued that because their sports event contracts are regulated federally as commodities, state gambling laws don’t apply to them. Titus’ bill would address that by going directly to the source and amending the federal statute itself to carve out sports and gaming contracts from what prediction markets are permitted to offer.
No companion Senate legislation has been announced.
Kalshi is fighting legal battles on several fronts, as state gambling authorities test the limits of the company’s federally regulated status. The exchange has active or recent court challenges in numerous states, including New York, California, and Illinois, where gaming regulators have questioned whether its events-based contracts violate local gambling laws.
At the center of those cases is the same question now driving federal interest — namely, whether sports event contracts prediction markets are regulated commodities or unlicensed gambling platforms.
