2026-06-24T15:56:12-0400 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻网
撰稿
2026年6月24日 / 美国东部时间下午3:56 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻网
美国联邦政府与越来越多的州在预测市场的监管问题上爆发冲突。
负责监管预测市场的联邦机构——商品期货交易委员会（CFTC）于周二就肯塔基州打压卡尔希（Kalshi）和波利市场（Polymarket）的行为提起诉讼，此前肯塔基州官员指控这两家平台违反了赌博法。肯塔基州州检察长拉塞尔·科尔曼本月早些时候连同另外两家公司起诉了这些预测市场平台，称其提供了非法体育博彩及赌博服务。
加上肯塔基州，CFTC目前已就9个州管控预测市场的举措提起法律诉讼，这9个州分别是亚利桑那州、康涅狄格州、伊利诺伊州、纽约州、新墨西哥州、明尼苏达州、罗德岛州和威斯康星州。
在今年5月针对明尼苏达州的诉讼中，CFTC试图阻止该州一项将在本州运营或协助运营预测市场定为重罪的法律。
这场监管争夺战的背后缘由是什么？
这场法律角力的核心在于，究竟是联邦政府还是各州拥有预测市场监管的首要管辖权。预测市场允许用户就体育赛事、选举等诸多事件的结果下注。
这场争端正值卡尔希和波利市场等公司的关键节点：这些企业已筹集了数十亿美元的风险投资，而预测市场正因内幕交易和洗钱指控面临严密审查。
CFTC表示，国会授予其对衍生品市场的专属管辖权。该机构称，2010年为加强金融监管在住房市场崩盘后通过的《多德-弗兰克法案》，扩大了其职权范围，赋予其对掉期合约（一种衍生品合同）的监管权。
“任何侵犯联邦监管权限的州，委员会都将继续提起诉讼，”CFTC发言人在给哥伦比亚广播公司新闻网的一份声明中表示。
普赖尔·卡什曼律师事务所合伙人、前联邦检察官杰弗里·阿尔伯茨表示，CFTC的管辖权是否涵盖体育博彩存在法律模糊地带，而体育博彩正是预测市场交易量的主要来源。皮尤研究中心的数据显示，过去两年中，体育赛事占卡尔希平台交易量的80%，占波利市场交易量的39%。
但他指出，若允许各州自行制定预测市场监管规则，可能会形成一套支离破碎的监管体系，抑制创新并阻碍行业发展。
“我们经常看到其他国家的金融科技公司能够击败美国企业，这并非因为它们更具创新性，而是因为我们同时让企业应对50个不同监管机构的要求，相当于自断臂膀，拖慢了行业发展速度，”阿尔伯茨说道。
而反对CFTC监管的各州则认为，这些预测市场平台助长了非法赌博，违反了本州法律。
美国博彩协会（AGA）等呼吁加强州级监管的倡导者还声称，CFTC缺乏监管预测市场的专业能力，尤其是在体育博彩领域——长期以来，体育博彩监管都属于各州的职权范围。据哥伦比亚广播公司体育频道报道，全美已有39个州推出了某种形式的合法体育博彩。
“这家规模不大的机构如何有效承担起全国体育博彩监管者的角色，这是一个非常现实的问题，”代表赌场和博彩业的美国博彩协会政府关系高级副总裁克里斯·西尔克说道，“我们认为他们做不到。”
阿尔伯茨表示，各州在监管赌博和预防赌博成瘾方面发挥着重要作用，并指出1936年确立CFTC法定监管框架的《商品交易法》（CEA）并非为解决此类问题而制定。
“国会并未明确表示《商品交易法》将CFTC转变为全国体育赌博监管机构，”他在接受哥伦比亚广播公司新闻网采访时表示，“从《商品交易法》的立法目的来看，它并非旨在解决赌博成瘾这类问题。”
此案或将上诉至最高法院？
法律专家认为，应由联邦政府还是各州监管预测市场这一问题，可能最快将于明年提交至美国最高法院。
特劳特曼·佩珀·洛克律师事务所合伙人、该所监管业务负责人斯蒂芬·皮普格拉斯表示，最高法院最终可能会划分监管权限，赋予各州监管特定体育赌注（如所谓的道具赌注）的权力，同时允许预测市场继续开展其他体育相关交易。
国会也有可能在案件提交最高法院之前就厘清这一问题。
“我们正在游说国会采取行动，因为我们从根本上认为这归根结底是国会立法意图的问题，这并非他们当初的立法本意，”美国博彩协会的西尔克说道。
编辑：阿兰·谢特
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/prediction-market-trader-created-ai-powered-program-to-help-him-win-big/
Some states want to regulate prediction markets. Should the feds let them?
2026-06-24T15:56:12-0400 / CBS News
By
June 24, 2026 / 3:56 PM EDT / CBS News
The federal government and a growing number of U.S. states are clashing over the regulation of prediction markets.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the federal agency that oversees prediction markets, on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against Kentucky over its efforts to crack down on Kalshi and Polymarket for what state officials allege are violations of gambling laws. Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman sued the prediction market platforms earlier this month, along with two other companies, alleging they offered illegal sports betting and gambling services.
Including Kentucky, the CFTC has now initiated legal actions against nine states over their push to rein in prediction markets: Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, New Mexico, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.
In its May suit against Minnesota, the CFTC is seeking to block a law that would make operating, or helping to operate, a prediction market in the state a felony.
What’s behind the battle for control?
The legal tussles boil down to whether the federal government or the states have primary authority to oversee prediction markets, which allow users to bet on the outcome of sports, elections and many other events.
The battle comes at a pivotal moment for companies like Kalshi and Polymarket, which have raised billions in venture capital, as prediction markets face scrutiny over allegations of insider trading and money laundering.
The CFTC says Congress gives it exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of derivative markets. According to the agency, the Dodd-Frank Act, a 2010 law passed in the wake of the housing crash to tighten financial oversight, expanded its authority by giving it control over swaps, a type of derivative contract.
“The commission will continue to pursue litigation in any state that infringes on its federal authority,” a CFTC spokesperson said in a statement to CBS News.
Jeffrey Alberts, a partner at the law firm Pryor Cashman and a former federal prosecutor, said there is legal ambiguity about whether the CFTC’s jurisdiction extends to sports betting, which drives much of the trading volume on prediction markets. Over the last two years, sports have accounted for 80% of trading volume on Kalshi and 39% on Polymarket, according to Pew Research.
But allowing individual states to apply their own rules to prediction markets could lead to a patchwork of regulations that chills innovation and stymies growth, he noted.
“We’ve often seen other countries where their fintech companies are able to beat ours, not because they’re more innovative, but because we’re kind of kneecapping our own industry by making them comply with 50 different regulators at the same time, which slows them down,” Alberts said.
For their part, the states challenging the prediction markets contend that the platforms are breaking their laws by enabling illegal gambling.
Advocates for stronger state oversight, such as the American Gaming Association, also claim the CFTC lacks the expertise to regulate prediction markets, particularly in sports betting, which has historically fallen within states’ regulatory domain. Thirty-nine states offer some form of legal sports betting, according to CBS Sports.
“There’s a very real question about how does this small agency effectively take on the role as a national sports betting regulator?” said Chris Cylke, senior vice president of government relations at the AGA, which represents the casino and gambling industry. “We believe the answer is that they can’t.”
States play a large role in regulating gambling and preventing addiction, Alberts said, noting that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) — the 1936 law that established the CFTC’s statutory framework — wasn’t designed to address those issues.
“Congress didn’t explicitly say that the CEA somehow converted the CFTC into a national sports gambling regulator,” he told CBS News. “When you look at the purpose of the CEA, it’s not to address things like addiction.”
Off to the Supremes?
Legal experts think the question of whether the federal government or the states should regulate prediction markets could end up before the Supreme Court, possibly as soon as next year.
Stephen Piepgrass, a partner at Troutman Pepper Locke who leads the law firm’s regulatory practice, said the high court could ultimately divide control, giving states authority to regulate certain sports wagers, such as so-called prop bets, while allowing prediction markets to continue offering other sports-related trades.
Congress also could provide clarification before the issue reaches the Supreme Court.
“We’re lobbying for Congress to act on this, because I think fundamentally we believe this boils down to congressional intent. This is not what they intended,” Cylke of the AGA said.
Edited by Alain Sherter
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/prediction-market-trader-created-ai-powered-program-to-help-him-win-big/
发表回复