The growing legal battles surrounding prediction market platforms Polymarket and Kalshi are raising important questions about the future of event-based trading in the United States.
As state authorities challenge how these platforms operate, a Newsmax opinion column by policy analyst Duggan Flanakin presents SafeBets as a potential alternative that could benefit from tighter gambling regulations.
The debate comes as regulators, courts, and sports organizations increasingly scrutinize prediction markets, where users trade contracts tied to real-world outcomes.
Register for the next Tekedia Mini-MBA.
Register for Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Although these platforms have attracted attention for allowing participants to speculate on elections, sports, economics, and other events, their legal status remains contested across multiple jurisdictions.
According to Flanakin’s column, approximately 20 states are involved in active litigation concerning prediction markets. Arizona has pursued criminal charges, while Minnesota has moved toward a near-total ban. New York has also filed a lawsuit against Polymarket, adding another significant legal challenge for the industry.
These developments reflect a broader disagreement over whether prediction markets should be treated as financial trading platforms or gambling operations subject to state restrictions.
Companies such as Polymarket and Kalshi have argued that their services fall within a regulatory framework distinct from traditional betting. State authorities have questioned whether certain contracts, particularly those involving sporting events, effectively constitute wagers.
The National Football League has entered the dispute, asking the Supreme Court to allow states to regulate prediction markets as gambling operations. The request highlights the importance of the outcome for professional sports, state gambling laws, and the companies seeking to expand event-based trading.
If courts permit broader state oversight, prediction market operators could face additional licensing requirements, restrictions on specific contracts, or prohibitions in jurisdictions where their products conflict with local gambling laws.
Such measures could complicate expansion plans and increase compliance costs. Against this backdrop, SafeBets is being promoted as a different approach. The platform’s central proposition, as described in the Newsmax opinion column, is that users can earn rewards without risking their own money.
This model could appeal to people interested in participating in prediction-related activities but reluctant to expose personal funds to potential losses. The distinction is important because traditional gambling typically involves staking money on uncertain outcomes.
By contrast, a rewards-based system that does not require users to risk their own funds could operate differently, depending on its precise mechanics and the applicable laws.
The absence of personal financial risk does not automatically exempt a platform from gambling regulations. Authorities may examine whether users receive prizes based on predictions, how rewards are funded, whether participation requires payment, and whether other legal definitions apply.
SafeBets would therefore need to demonstrate that its operating model complies with relevant federal and state requirements. For investors and industry observers, the dispute illustrates how regulatory decisions can reshape competition.
A platform designed around rewards rather than conventional wagering might attract users if restrictions narrow the options available through established prediction markets.
SafeBets’ potential advantage remains conditional on its actual business structure and the courts’ interpretations of gambling law. As Flanakin’s column concludes, Should the Supreme Court allow state regulation of prediction markets as gambling operations, SafeBets could be an even bigger winner.
The statement captures the opportunity, but the ultimate outcome will depend on regulatory definitions, judicial decisions, and the platform’s ability to establish a legally sustainable alternative.