Cortez Masto disputes CFTC prediction-market directive
U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto has criticized the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s position on geographic restrictions, arguing that its approach to prediction markets undermines state and tribal gambling authority. Her comments followed a November 5 interpretation directing federally regulated exchanges to address restrictions on domestic access.
The CFTC’s interpretation concerns designated contract markets and their obligation to provide competitive, open, fair and impartial access. Exchanges must cease domestic geographic restrictions that violate those requirements within 30 days or explain to the regulator’s Division of Market Oversight why compliance is not feasible.
“Derivatives markets must operate on a uniform basis at a national scale in order to achieve the purposes set out in the Commodity Exchange Act. Geographic access restrictions are inconsistent with those purposes and the Act’s impartial access requirements,” CFTC Chairman Michael S. Selig said. The agency also instructed exchanges to address restrictions imposed by intermediaries accessing their markets, or submit an explanation within the same period.
Cortez Masto disputed the application of that position to sports contracts, saying they constitute gambling subject to state and tribal jurisdiction. She also alleged that the policy benefits Trump family interests in prediction-market businesses. That accusation represents the senator’s position; it is not a finding of misconduct by the commission.
Senator supports an express statutory prohibition
The Nevada Democrat has backed legislation intended to remove sports and casino-style contracts from federally regulated prediction markets. In March, she joined Senators Adam Schiff and John Curtis in supporting the Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act, which would prohibit covered exchanges from listing those contracts.
The proposal seeks to clarify the relationship between the Commodity Exchange Act and gambling regulation. Its supporters argue that sports event contracts should not provide an alternative route around state consumer protections or tribal gaming authority. The bill remains a legislative proposal rather than an enacted prohibition.
The access dispute follows litigation over whether federal derivatives regulation preempts state gambling restrictions. Recent proceedings have produced jurisdiction-specific outcomes, including interim injunction decisions involving prediction-market businesses. The CFTC’s announcement states its regulatory interpretation; it does not itself document the lifting of individual court orders.
The commission has directed exchanges unable to comply to provide explanations rather than describing an unconditional requirement to resume every contract everywhere. That process places the immediate next step with the affected markets and the Division of Market Oversight, while the broader dispute over sports contracts continues through courts and Congress.
