AGA’s Bill Miller demands prediction markets join state betting systems

AGA CEO Bill Miller says prediction market platforms are bypassing state law, costing states an estimated $480m in lost tax revenue since launch.

American Gaming Association CEO Bill Miller has renewed his attack on prediction market platforms, calling on companies offering sports event contracts to submit to state and tribal licensing regimes on the same terms as every other legal sportsbook in the country.

Miller made the comments in an op-ed published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, framing the issue as a straightforward jurisdictional dispute rather than a product classification debate.

The AGA’s Core Argument

Miller’s position cuts through the regulatory uncertainty that has surrounded prediction markets since their expansion into sports event contracts. The AGA argues that platforms like Kalshi and Robinhood are operating unlicensed sports betting businesses under federal cover, using Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) oversight as a shield against state-level regulation.

“If companies want to offer products that look and function like sports betting, common sense dictates they should operate within the same state and tribal systems as every other licensed sportsbook. That means licensing, oversight, integrity monitoring and paying the same taxes that support education, infrastructure and responsible gaming programs.”

The AGA puts the cost to states at $480m in lost tax revenue since sports event contracts were introduced. That figure sits at the centre of the trade association’s campaign, which has escalated alongside a wave of state attorney general lawsuits and tribal enforcement actions against prediction market operators.

Regulatory Fault Line

The dispute turns on a single question: does federal CFTC regulation of event contracts satisfy the consumer protection and integrity requirements that state gambling laws are designed to enforce? Prediction market platforms say yes. State regulators, the AGA, and an expanding coalition of tribal governments say no.

Miller’s op-ed addresses that disagreement directly.

“Rebranding sports betting as ‘trading’ does not change the product. It ignores the voice of voters and elected leaders who deliberately created a state- and tribal-regulated system to oversee gambling.”

The platforms have not publicly retreated from their federal jurisdiction argument. Kalshi surpassed DraftKings and FanDuel in app downloads ahead of Super Bowl LX and reported $1bn in Super Bowl trading volume, up 2,700% year-on-year, suggesting the commercial momentum is running well ahead of any regulatory resolution.

Enforcement Escalating

The AGA’s intervention comes as the legal disputes move from rhetoric into active litigation. Nevada courts issued a restraining order against Polymarket in February, and the Nevada Gaming Board filed suit against Coinbase over what it characterised as unlicensed betting operations. Both cases reflect the broader pattern Miller is describing: state regulators treating CFTC-regulated platforms as operating outside authorised frameworks.

“This is exactly why state attorneys general and tribal governments across the country are filing lawsuits and taking enforcement action. States are pushing back because these products bypass proven consumer protections, undermine state authority and threaten the integrity of a regulated market.”

DraftKings, for its part, secured federal approvals for its own prediction markets platform and launched in 38 US states in late 2025, positioning itself as a licensed operator playing in both regulatory frameworks simultaneously. That dual-track approach may prove more durable than the pure CFTC-only model, though it does not resolve the underlying classification question.

What Comes Next

The CFTC has not moved to resolve the jurisdictional overlap, and the absence of federal legislative action leaves the dispute to play out in courts and state legislatures. Miller’s op-ed is consistent with the AGA’s longer-term campaign to bring prediction markets under state authority, but the platforms’ continued growth and the lack of a federal ruling means the outcome remains open. The $480m tax figure is likely to feature prominently in state-level legislative debates as the 2026 session calendar fills out.

Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal / American Gaming Association

Related posts

Ontario Launches BetGuard Centralized Self-Exclusion System

Alberta Joins Supreme Court Fight Over Canada iGaming Future

Brazil’s Workers’ Party Files Bill to Ban All Gambling

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this. Read More