More Than Two Dozen Prediction Market Bills Reflect Congressional Attention Not Agreement, Law Experts Say

Congress has introduced more than 25 prediction market bills during the current session, yet lawmakers remain far from agreeing on how the industry should be regulated.

The proposals range from outright bans on sports-event contracts to measures targeting insider trading, restricting trading by public officials, strengthening consumer protections, and establishing broader federal regulatory frameworks.

Despite the high number of proposals, only one bill has advanced beyond introduction. Earlier this week, the House Appropriations Committee voted 5-4 to advance the Stop Lawmakers From Predicting Act.

At first glance, the volume of legislation suggests Congress is building momentum toward federal regulation. However, according to Joshua Huder, congressional scholar and senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, and gambling law expert and author I. Nelson Rose, the picture is more complicated.

Rather than signaling consensus on prediction market regulation, the bills reflect two parallel developments: lawmakers increasingly believe the growing sector requires congressional attention, but they remain divided over how prediction markets should be classified and regulated.

The legislative activity comes amid an increasingly active federal response. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has filed lawsuits challenging state efforts to restrict federally regulated event contracts, while proposing rules that would formally govern the sector.

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has also publicly endorsed prediction markets as “financial markets” that should remain under CFTC oversight.

Bills Often Signal Priorities Before They Become Law

A common misconception about Congress is that every introduced bill is intended to become law.

Huder said lawmakers frequently introduce legislation to demonstrate their priorities, represent constituent concerns, or take a position on emerging issues, even when they believe the proposal is unlikely to advance on its own.

Prediction markets have become one such issue. Rose said lawmakers are responding to growing public attention surrounding the industry, arguing that “politicians can read the public will” as more states debate whether to outlaw, tax, or regulate sports-event contracts.

Huder told Gambling Insider in an email:

Passing legislation is often not the point. They introduce bills to represent their constituents and/or priorities.”

Committee Leadership Matters More Than Co-Sponsor Counts

Introducing a bill is only one step in the legislative process. According to Huder, committees (and the lawmakers and staff responsible for those policy areas) play the central role in determining which proposals eventually move through Congress.

That helps explain why dozens of prediction market bills can exist simultaneously, even though many address the same issues. Individual lawmakers may continue introducing proposals, but committees ultimately decide which ideas receive serious consideration.

Co-sponsor counts are often viewed as a measure of a bill’s momentum. However, Huder said they should be interpreted carefully.

A cosponsor count with over 300 is a really significant policy idea,” he said. “It’s very hard to ignore a bill with that many cosponsors because it indicates a majority of the chamber and bipartisan support.”

Still, fewer co-sponsors do not necessarily indicate weak legislation.

If those cosponsors are the committee chair and the ranking member… that is also a huge deal because committee leadership has put their weight behind a policy idea and they have the institutional tools and influence to pass that legislation.”

Huder also noted that bipartisan legislation is generally more likely to advance. Meanwhile, partisan proposals often serve primarily as messaging vehicles.

Prediction market legislation illustrates that point.

The first prediction market bill to advance through committee was Rep. Bryan Steil’s Stop Lawmakers From Predicting Act. Steil introduced the measure just a week before the committee vote, with no co-sponsors. As chair of the House Administration Committee, however, he led the panel that voted to advance it.

By contrast, Rep. Ritchie Torres’ Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act has attracted 45 co-sponsors (the most of any federal prediction-market bill). Still, it has remained pending before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the House Administration Committee for more than six months.

The contrast illustrates Huder’s point that committee leadership and jurisdiction often matter more than the co-sponsors.

Congress Remains Divided on How to Regulate Prediction Markets

The diversity of prediction market bills reflects another reality: Congress has yet to settle on how prediction markets should ultimately be classified or regulated.

Rose believes that diversity reflects continued uncertainty among lawmakers over the nature of prediction markets themselves.

Rose said in an email:

Most legislators do not know how predictions work. So, yes, they are divided and likely to follow what the public’s view is, which is that this is gambling.”

Rose added that the distinction matters because prediction markets occupy a legal gray area. While many state lawmakers have pursued bans or restrictions, he argued that those efforts may ultimately be limited if Congress or the courts find that federally regulated prediction markets fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The competing proposals reflect those differing priorities. Some focus on sports-event contracts, while others address ethics rules for public officials, insider trading, consumer protections, or the CFTC’s oversight of event contracts.

Huder said that divergence should not be interpreted as a lack of momentum.

It’s not an either-or. It’s both, and they’re both important,” he wrote. “If you see more bills being introduced in this space, it means Congress believes the issue needs attention, and they may be debating the best regulations.”

Competing Proposals Could Eventually Be Folded Into One Bill

Only one prediction market bill has advanced through committee so far. However, congressional legislation often evolves by combining provisions from multiple proposals rather than advancing a single bill unchanged.

Multiple bills can be stuffed into a single bill,” Huder said. “We saw that the past few months on housing legislation. Republicans and Democrats took ideas from bills introduced by both parties and stuffed them into a larger measure.”

Huder added that the process is common in Congress. Lawmakers ultimately decide which ideas survive as legislation moves through committees and negotiations.

Prediction markets could ultimately follow a similar path.

Rather than advancing independently, lawmakers could eventually consolidate many of those proposals into a single legislative vehicle. That’s if lawmakers begin coalescing around a broader framework.

For now, Huder said Congress is still in the early stages of that process.

The issues need attention before Congress finds policy solutions,” he said. “Winnowing the right bill is the second step of the process.”