Nevada Congressmen Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Ban Sports Betting on Prediction Markets

Two Nevada congressmen introduced a bipartisan bill this week that would effectively ban sports-style betting on federally regulated prediction markets. Rep. Steven Horsford (D-NV) and Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) unveiled the Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act, aiming to stop platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket from offering sports and casino-style event contracts under the umbrella of financial trading.

The bill lands amid an escalating fight between Nevada gaming regulators and prediction market operators, who have been offering wagers on sporting events while classifying them as federally regulated financial products rather than sports bets. That distinction has let the platforms sidestep state licensing, consumer protection rules, and gaming taxes that traditional sportsbooks must follow.

Closing a Federal Loophole

Prediction markets sell “event contracts” that let users wager on outcomes such as which team wins a game, generating revenue through fees rather than traditional sportsbook vig. Those contracts fall under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) rather than state gaming regulators, and the companies don’t pay the kind of state wagering taxes that licensed operators do — in Nevada, that’s a 6.75 percent tax on all wagers.

“When it looks like sports betting, it acts like sports betting, and profits from sports betting, then it should follow the same rules as every other sportsbook,” Horsford told The Nevada Independent. “Regardless of which app a consumer uses, they deserve the same protection, and that has been the gold standard of regulation that Nevada has been built on, and it’s what we are working to ensure is protected.”

Amodei framed the legislation similarly, saying gaming policy “has long been the responsibility of states and tribes, not unelected federal regulators,” and that the bill “closes a federal loophole that allows sports betting to masquerade as financial trading.”

What the Bill Would and Wouldn’t Do

The legislation draws a line between gambling and legitimate hedging. Sports and casino-style event contracts offered on federally registered exchanges would be prohibited outright — the bill’s backers argue a wager on the Super Bowl doesn’t become a financial product simply because it’s offered through a trading app. Bona fide hedging instruments tied to weather or economic outcomes would remain untouched and stay under CFTC oversight.

The bill also includes language affirming that states and tribes retain ultimate authority to regulate gaming and can impose stricter limits of their own if they choose. Supporters say resolving the issue directly in statute avoids years of costly CFTC rulemaking and likely litigation that would otherwise follow.

This House bill has a companion in the Senate, where Sens. John Curtis (R-UT) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) lead a similar measure introduced back in March, with Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) signing on as a co-sponsor.

Part of a Bigger Legal Fight

The federal push follows months of state-level battles. Nevada regulators have already moved to block Kalshi’s access to customers in the state amid an ongoing legal dispute, and the fight has extended to federal court, with a hearing held at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals over whether states can enforce their gaming laws against CFTC-regulated platforms. For companies like Kalshi and Polymarket, the outcome of that legal fight — and now this legislative push — could determine whether sports-style contracts remain part of their business at all.

If the Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act becomes law, it would represent one of the most direct federal interventions yet in the debate over how prediction markets should be regulated, potentially reshaping the fast-growing sector well beyond Nevada’s borders.