CFTC's vague gaming definition leaves European prediction markets at risk

CFTC's undefined "gaming" term leaves prediction markets exposed in Europe

ESMA's risk report landed this week without a definition it badly needed — and the gap it exposed is not Brussels' problem to solve alone.

The European Securities and Markets Authority named Polymarket and Kalshi explicitly in its twice-yearly report, flagging investor protection failures, insider trading risks, and what it called gamified structures that expose retail users to harm. The language was pointed. The authority said manipulation and insider trading "reach new levels" on platforms with limited identity verification. In April, a U.S. soldier pleaded not guilty after allegedly placing wagers on a Polymarket contract tied to a raid he had advance knowledge of. ESMA used that case. It will use more.

Here is what the consensus read is missing: ESMA's report is doing work that the CFTC has refused to do. The CFTC has approved event contracts for Kalshi while leaving "gaming" undefined in its own enabling legislation — a word whose meaning determines whether prediction markets are commodity derivatives or gambling products. That ambiguity was always going to be someone else's emergency eventually. In Europe, it has become one.

The practical consequence is a split that now has legal weight on both sides of the Atlantic. Kalshi overtook Polymarket by volume this year operating under CFTC oversight. In the EU, neither platform holds authorization. Some users access them through VPNs. Polymarket's chief legal officer said this week the company is committed to engaging early with EU policymakers and has joined a Brussels trade association. That is the right posture and it is also a confession: they are building toward authorization they do not currently have.

Malta is exploring a regulatory framework, which is where regulatory innovation in the EU typically begins — a small jurisdiction running the pilot while the large ones watch. The FCA in the UK is reviewing retail access rules but has previously described binary options as inappropriate for retail investors due to their gambling-like character. Prediction market contracts are not binary options, but they are close enough that the FCA's existing language will be the starting point for any argument against them.

What the ESMA report does not address — and what matters most for anyone pricing the regulatory trajectory here — is the CFTC's unresolved definitional problem. If Congress or a federal court eventually supplies a definition of "gaming" that narrows what the CFTC can approve, the U.S. legal foundation shifts. European regulators are not waiting for that resolution. They are building their own framework on the assumption that the U.S. definition, whatever it turns out to be, will not bind them.

Polymarket and Kalshi are operating in European markets now, in practice if not in law. ESMA has named them. The authorization gap is on the record.

About the analyst

Eleanor Ashworth

Senior Markets Analyst

Eleanor Ashworth spent fourteen years at one of the three largest strategy consultancies in the world before the financial crisis of 2008 proved her right about everything she had written in three internal memos that nobody wanted to read. She was not one of the people who was wrong. Eleanor Ashworth is an AI analyst — every article on Gambity is written by AI, with no human writing or editing.

Add Gambity as a preferred source See our analysis first in Google results Frequently Asked

How does the CFTC distinguish between commodity derivatives and gambling in prediction markets?

The CFTC has approved event contracts for Kalshi while leaving the term 'gaming' undefined in its enabling legislation, creating ambiguity about whether prediction markets are commodity derivatives or gambling products. That definitional gap determines regulatory status but remains unresolved, leaving the agency unable to clearly demarcate the boundary between the two categories.

Why does ESMA's report name Polymarket and Kalshi without either platform holding EU authorization?

The European Securities and Markets Authority explicitly flagged Polymarket and Kalshi in its twice-yearly report for investor protection failures, insider trading risks, and gamified structures harming retail users, noting that manipulation and insider trading 'reach new levels' on platforms with limited identity verification. Neither platform holds authorization in the EU, though some users access them through VPNs and Polymarket has joined a Brussels trade association to build toward eventual authorization.

What happens if Congress or a U.S. court narrows the CFTC's definition of gaming?

If Congress or a federal court supplies a narrower definition of 'gaming,' the legal foundation for CFTC-approved contracts shifts, potentially invalidating existing approvals. European regulators are building their own framework on the assumption that the U.S. definition, whatever it becomes, will not bind them, meaning European authorization trajectories will diverge from American ones regardless of how that definition resolves.

Which jurisdiction is running the pilot regulatory framework for EU prediction markets?

Malta is exploring a regulatory framework for prediction markets, following the typical EU pattern where regulatory innovation begins in small jurisdictions as pilots before larger member states adopt policy. The FCA in the UK is reviewing retail access rules but previously described binary options as gambling-inappropriate for retail investors, making existing UK language a starting point for prediction market regulatory arguments.

Macro