As prediction markets continue to move from niche experimentation into mainstream financial discourse, they are creating a new set of challenges for regulators and compliance teams alike. At the heart of the issue is jurisdiction.
According to StarCompliance, these markets, which allow participants to trade contracts linked to future outcomes, increasingly blur the boundaries between securities, commodities, and gambling regulation.
As event-based contracts become more complex, particularly those tied to corporate or financial outcomes, existing regulatory frameworks are being tested in ways they were never designed to accommodate.
Prediction markets operate by enabling participants to buy and sell contracts whose prices reflect the collective belief about the likelihood of future events. In practice, this means market pricing becomes a proxy for probability. While the concept is not new, the scale, accessibility, and sophistication of today’s platforms are bringing them firmly onto the radar of financial regulators and compliance professionals.
These issues were recently discussed by Troy A. Paredes, former Commissioner of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, who highlighted the growing regulatory and compliance implications associated with the evolution of prediction markets. His observations reflect wider concerns across the compliance community about how oversight will be applied as these markets intersect more closely with traditional financial instruments.
One of the most pressing issues is jurisdictional uncertainty. In the U.S., regulatory authority remains fragmented, with oversight split between the SEC, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and state-level regulators. Determining which body has authority often depends on whether a product resembles a security, a security-based swap, a futures contract, or a commodity interest.
As prediction markets introduce increasingly sophisticated event contracts, especially those referencing securities or corporate actions, these distinctions become harder to apply consistently. As Troy A. Paredes put it, “Regulatory lines may remain blurred, but compliance responsibilities are anything but.”
Beyond formal classification, regulators may also rely on broader regulatory “hooks” to assert oversight. If prediction market activity becomes linked to traditional securities trading, whether through shared data signals, algorithmic strategies, or correlated trading behaviour, this could trigger regulatory scrutiny. Concepts such as activity occurring “in connection with the purchase or sale” of securities may be interpreted expansively, creating indirect but meaningful pathways for enforcement.
Even in situations where jurisdiction remains unclear, enforcement risk does not disappear. The U.S. Department of Justice retains the ability to pursue cases under mail and wire fraud statutes regardless of how an asset is classified. The prosecution of NFT-related insider trading in U.S. v. Chastain demonstrated how long-standing legal principles can be applied to novel digital assets. The broader takeaway for firms is clear: anti-fraud and anti-manipulation obligations apply universally, even in regulatory grey zones.
Market sentiment reflects this caution. A recent study by StarCompliance found that most firms do not permit employees to participate in prediction markets, particularly those linked to securities or financial instruments. However, the absence of participation does not always mean formal policies are in place. Many organisations are still assessing how best to respond, citing uncertainty around regulatory expectations.
For compliance and risk teams, waiting for definitive regulatory guidance may be a costly mistake. Firms are increasingly expected to take a proactive approach, updating internal policies to address event contracts, requiring disclosures or attestations from employees, and balancing privacy considerations with effective oversight. Anticipating how regulators may interpret emerging risks can help organisations reduce both regulatory and reputational exposure.
Real-world developments continue to underline how quickly this landscape is shifting. DraftKings’ recent launch of a prediction market app in parts of the U.S. without legalised sports betting highlights the uneven patchwork of federal and state rules. This mirrors challenges seen across digital assets more broadly, where innovation often outpaces regulation.
Ultimately, prediction markets are pushing the limits of existing regulatory definitions. For compliance teams, navigating this uncertainty will require vigilance, adaptability, and early engagement with evolving risk models rather than reliance on regulatory clarity alone.
Find more on RegTech Analyst.
Copyright © 2026 FinTech Global
