CFTC Chair Selig Teases Looming Prediction Markets Guidance Release

Michael Selig, chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), has suggested that a new prediction markets guidance could be released very soon. This came amid continued calls for tougher regulation of the vertical.

The Guidance Will Provide Extra Clarity

Speaking at the Milken Institute’s Future of Finance 2026 conference, Selig suggested that a guidance on the regulation of prediction markets could land “in the very near future,” paving the way to a formal regulation of the divisive event contracts trading.

While this means that the sector might finally get some formal rules, it also highlights the CFTC’s unwavering decision to keep prediction markets under its purview. Selig emphasized that the CFTC does not wish to have 50 different frameworks for event contracts, emphasizing that he doesn’t believe that prediction markets fall under the regulatory scope of state regulators.

As a result, a conflict between the commission and state regulatory bodies seems inevitable. For context, state regulators have long called prediction markets a form of gambling, asserting that such products should follow state gaming regulations. The prediction markets vertical has long been under fire by regulators, tribal gaming entities, and regulated gaming stakeholders alike. Some believe that the matter might eventually be brought up to the Supreme Court.

Selig Rejected Over-Regulation

In his statement, Selig emphasized that sports betting and prediction markets are not mutually exclusive and can co-exist. However, he ultimately distinguished prediction markets as a separate product that does not qualify as sports betting and said that gaming operators should not interfere in event contracts just like the CFTC officials do not go into casinos to evaluate the legality of their products.

In any case, Selig seemed optimistic that the new guidance would set out clear standards for the rapidly growing prediction markets sector, eliminating some of the uncertainty.

He added that he rejected a prohibitionist approach or over-regulation since they could only push players to the offshore market. He emphasized that a similar thing previously happened with cryptocurrency regulations.