Stories to Watch: Post-Super Bowl Handle Test, Sweepstakes Hearings Heat Up, and Connecticut’s Prediction-Market Showdown

With the Super Bowl behind us, attention turns from record handle to retention, regulation, and the courts. Sweepstakes bills are moving, enforcement actions are accelerating, and judges are deciding whether prediction markets fall under gambling law or federal commodities rules.

Here’s what to watch.

Post-Super Bowl: Betting Figures?

According to industry estimates, Americans legally wagered between $1.7bn and $1.76bn on Super Bowl LX, marking another record year for regulated sportsbooks.

This year also marked the first Super Bowl with prediction markets offering sports event contracts. On Kalshi, traders generated close to $1 billion in total volume, including more than $500 million on the game-winner market alone.

That crossover puts event-contract trading volumes within range of some mid-tier sportsbook Super Bowl handles — and raises a new question for the industry: how much betting activity migrated away from licensed sportsbooks and onto federally regulated exchanges.

Why it matters

The week after the Super Bowl typically provides the clearest read on sportsbook fundamentals — whether operators retained customers or simply paid for short-term volume through promotions. This year, the calculus is different.

For the first time, analysts and regulators alike will be watching market share leakage, not just retention, as prediction platforms compete directly for the same bettors. If exchanges continue to capture meaningful volume, expect faster state scrutiny and additional enforcement actions or legislation to protect licensed sportsbook ecosystems.

Prediction Markets Face Court in Connecticut

Legal pressure on event-contract platforms intensifies this week in Connecticut. Two separate federal court hearings are scheduled for Feb. 11 involving:

• Kalshi
• Coinbase

Both argue their products fall under federal commodities regulation rather than state gambling law. Connecticut’s hearings come as courts elsewhere have recently sided with regulators:

• A Nevada federal judge denied Coinbase’s request for an emergency restraining order against state gaming regulators.
• A Massachusetts Superior Court entered a preliminary injunction against Kalshi, requiring statewide geofencing within 30 days, and denied the company’s request to stay the order pending appeal.
• Separately in Nevada, a state court issued a temporary restraining order against Polymarket, finding the Commodity Futures Trading Commission does not have exclusive jurisdiction under the Commodity Exchange Act.

Why it matters

Momentum currently favors the states. If Connecticut follows the same path, more regulators nationwide may feel emboldened to pursue injunctions and cease-and-desist orders. While litigation will continue for the foreseeable future, a ruling in Connecticut could further strengthen states’ cases.

Sweepstakes Crackdown Watch: Hearings in Indiana and Florida

This year’s legislative sessions have already produced at least 10 states introducing legislation that either explicitly bans sweepstakes casinos or tightens state statutes to effectively target the unregulated platforms. For this upcoming week, there are two bills on the calendar, but more could follow.

Florida – HB 189 Hearing (Feb. 10)

In Florida, HB 189 will be discussed by the House Commerce Committee on Feb. 10. The legislation does not explicitly reference sweepstakes casinos. Instead, it expands definitions around unauthorized online gambling, strengthens enforcement authority for regulators, and clarifies what constitutes illegal wagering activity and payment processing.

However, the broader statutory language — particularly regarding unlicensed internet gaming and entities facilitating bets from Florida residents — could effectively capture sweepstakes-style dual-currency platforms, even if they are not explicitly named.

Why it matters

Florida doesn’t need to single out sweepstakes to impact them. By widening definitions and enforcement tools, regulators could pursue these operators under existing gambling prohibitions rather than passing sweepstakes-specific bans.

Indiana – HB 1052 Hearing (Feb. 11)

After clearing the House, Indiana’s HB 1052 — a broader gaming administration bill that includes restrictions on sweepstakes casinos — now moves to the Senate for its first hearing. The Senate Committee on Public Policy is scheduled to take up the measure on Feb. 11, where lawmakers could advance it to the full chamber.

Why it matters

During House committee review, legislators amended the bill to remove criminal penalties and refine the scope. They narrowed references from “multi-currency” systems to specifically “dual-currency” structures — a language widely associated with sweepstakes casinos.

That definitional shift makes the bill more enforceable and more directly tailored to the sweepstakes model, without creating a new legal category.

If it clears the committee, HB 1052 could reach the Senate floor quickly, positioning Indiana among the first states to pass legislation explicitly aimed at curbing the unregulated sweepstakes sector.

Wyoming Session Opens — Tax or iGaming Back on the Table?

The Wyoming legislature opens its 2026 session on Feb. 9, possibly putting gambling policy back on the agenda. Two principal topics were discussed last year and could reappear in 2026:

• Sports betting tax: A 2025 proposal sought to double the online sports betting tax from 10% to 20% to boost general fund revenue. With several states — including New Jersey, Maryland, and Louisiana — raising rates in 2025, Wyoming lawmakers may revisit the idea as part of broader budget discussions.
• iGaming: An online casino bill could also return as another revenue lever. Last year’s HB 162 failed to gain traction, but the continued growth of digital betting — and competition from emerging products like prediction markets — may prompt renewed consideration.

Why it matters

Even as a smaller market, any tax hike or revived iGaming push could signal how aggressively other states pursue gambling revenue in 2026.

Bottom Line

This week isn’t about splashy launches — it’s about structural signals:

• Do sportsbooks retain Super Bowl customers?
• Do sweepstakes bans spread state-to-state?
• Do courts slow prediction markets or clear their path?

Those answers may shape the tone of the 2026 legislative cycle far more than any single market launch.