Comment Period Closed: July 27, 2026
The CFTC's comment period on its June 2026 prediction market rulemaking (91 FR 35806) has closed. This page explains what the process looks like from here — what CFTC staff do next, what outcomes are possible, and what it means for prediction market traders.
Federal agencies must follow the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 553) when issuing rules with the force of law. Here's the five-phase process — and where the CFTC's prediction market rulemaking is right now.
June 12, 2026
The CFTC issued the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on June 10, 2026, published in the Federal Register on June 12 (91 FR 35806). The proposed rule introduced a three-step public interest framework for certain event contract categories.
Closed July 27, 2026
The public comment window ran for 45 days. Commenters included exchanges, traders, industry groups, consumer advocates, and state gambling regulators. The CFTC received over 3,500 comments during the prior ANPRM phase; the NPRM comment volume is expected to be significant.
Now underway — no fixed deadline
CFTC staff review all substantive comments, prepare an economic analysis, and draft a recommendation for commissioners. Comments that raise new factual questions or legal arguments receive individual analysis. This is typically the longest phase.
Typically 6–18 months post-comment close
The five CFTC commissioners review staff recommendations and may vote on a final rule, a revised proposed rule, or withdrawal of the rulemaking. Commissioner votes can be split; a majority is required to issue a final rule.
12–24 months from comment close is typical for CFTC
The final rule is published in the Federal Register with an effective date. Exchanges have a compliance window — typically 60 to 180 days — to implement required changes. The rule is subject to congressional review under the Congressional Review Act.
Source: CFTC NPRM, 91 FR 35806 (June 12, 2026) · Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553.
Based on the proposed rule text and how CFTC comment-and-review processes have worked in prior complex rulemakings, three distinct outcomes are possible.
These are scenarios based on the proposed rule text and APA precedent — not predictions about CFTC intentions. Outcomes depend on staff analysis, commissioner deliberation, and whether the legislative landscape changes.
The CFTC adopts the three-step public interest framework largely as proposed. Single-game sports contracts and certain high-volume sports-outcome markets face enhanced review before self-certification can proceed.
For Traders
Sports event contracts may require CFTC approval for each new offering rather than simple exchange self-certification. Political, economic, and entertainment markets are not targeted by the proposed framework and would continue as before.
Historical Basis
Possible — this is the proposed rule text. Comment volume and industry opposition could lead to modifications.
Source: CFTC.gov — 91 FR 35806 (June 12, 2026)
High comment volume — particularly from traders, exchanges, and industry groups — leads the CFTC to narrow the rule's scope. Certain sports contract types survive; the three-step framework is limited to a smaller category.
For Traders
Many currently available sports contracts would remain accessible. The exchange self-certification process may be modified but not blocked for most market types. Traders with existing positions would be unaffected.
Historical Basis
Common in complex CFTC rulemakings where industry comment is substantial. Prior CFTC prediction market proceedings were shaped by comment feedback.
Source: Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 553) — agencies must consider all substantive comments
Congressional action (such as the CLARITY Act), a change in administration priorities, or commissioner-level disagreement leads the CFTC to pause the rulemaking or withdraw the proposed rule without issuing a final version.
For Traders
The status quo continues. Exchanges self-certify contracts under existing rules. The legislative path (CLARITY Act) or subsequent CFTC action becomes the primary regulatory horizon to watch.
Historical Basis
Historically possible. The CFTC withdrew a prior proposed prediction market rule in 2012 after extensive comment feedback. The CLARITY Act's parallel track adds another variable.
Source: APA § 553; CFTC precedent — withdrawal is within agency discretion at any point before final rule
The NPRM targets specific event contract categories. Here's how each category maps to the proposed three-step framework — based on the published rule text, not speculation.
This table reflects the proposed rule only. No final rule has been adopted; no contracts are currently restricted under this rulemaking.
| Contract Category | Examples | Status Under Proposed Rule | Risk Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sports outcome (game result) | NFL game winner, NBA champion, World Cup outcome | At risk — subject to three-step public interest review under proposed rule | At Risk |
| Player performance props | Passing yards, home runs, assists | At risk — proposed rule targets sports-event contract category broadly | At Risk |
| Election outcome | Presidential winner, Senate seat control, ballot initiative | Conditional — existing CFTC approval in place; proposed rule focuses on sports/gaming category | Conditional |
| Entertainment / awards | Oscar Best Picture, Emmy winner | Not targeted by proposed rule framework | Not Targeted |
| Economic indicators | Fed rate decision, CPI, jobs report | Not targeted by proposed rule framework | Not Targeted |
| Weather / climate | Hurricane category, monthly temperature | Not targeted by proposed rule framework | Not Targeted |
| Gaming / terrorism / assassination / war | Permanently banned categories under CEA §5c(c)(5)(C) | Permanently prohibited — existing law, not NPRM | At Risk |
Source: CFTC NPRM, 91 FR 35806 — Public Interest Determinations framework. Permanently banned categories (gaming, terrorism, etc.) under CEA §5c(c)(5)(C) are existing law and not affected by this rulemaking.
No immediate action is needed. Here's what to monitor over the coming months.
The CFTC publishes all rulemaking actions in the Federal Register and on CFTC.gov. A final rule, supplemental NPRM, or withdrawal notice will appear there first. Set a Google Alert for "CFTC rule 40.11" or monitor CFTC.gov directly.
The Senate floor vote on the CLARITY Act is expected the week of August 3, 2026. If enacted, it could clarify CFTC jurisdiction in ways that affect how this rulemaking proceeds — or render parts of it moot. Track the CLARITY Act →
Platforms are required to notify users before making changes to available markets. Kalshi and Polymarket will announce any market restrictions through their official channels — not third-party coverage. If your platform emails you about a market change, check the official platform page for context.
Active litigation in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Washington state will continue in parallel with the federal rulemaking. Court rulings — especially circuit-level decisions — can affect the regulatory landscape faster than the APA rulemaking process.
These are typical APA rulemaking timelines for complex CFTC proceedings — not CFTC commitments. Actual timing depends on comment volume, commissioner priorities, and legislative developments.
| Milestone | Estimated Timing | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Comment period closed ← Now | July 27, 2026 | Staff review begins immediately; no public notices expected in this phase |
| Staff analysis complete | 3–9 months (Q4 2026 – Q1 2027, typical) | Comment volume, complexity, and CFTC workload all affect this timeline |
| Commissioner vote / final rule | 12–24 months from comment close (typical) | CFTC may also issue a supplemental NPRM for further comment if significantly modified |
| Effective date (if final rule adopted) | 60–180 days after final rule publication (typical compliance window) | Subject to congressional review under CRA; 60-day review window before rule takes effect |
Timeline estimates based on APA § 553 and CFTC historical rulemaking precedent. Confirm any specific dates at CFTC.gov.
Comment periods for CFTC prediction market proceedings draw substantial input from a range of stakeholders with competing interests. This rulemaking received comments from three broad categories:
Prediction market exchanges (Kalshi, Polymarket), industry groups, and financial services organizations arguing that event contracts provide legitimate price discovery and risk management functions — and that sports contracts should remain available under the existing self-certification framework.
Consumer advocacy groups, tribal gaming organizations, sports leagues, state gambling regulators, and a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general filed comments arguing that sports event contracts are unlicensed gambling products that circumvent state law. A consumer coalition cited that sports markets represent approximately 89% of prediction market revenue.
Individual retail traders and members of the public submitted comments about their experiences using prediction markets for price discovery, hedging, and entertainment. The prior ANPRM phase received over 3,500 public comments — the highest volume in CFTC rulemaking history at that time.
Source: CFTC NPRM, 91 FR 35806 · CFTC comment docket
CFTC staff will review all public comments received during the comment period and prepare a recommendation. The agency then has discretion to issue a final rule, a revised proposed rule, or take no further action. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, there is no fixed deadline for this process — it typically takes 12 to 24 months from comment close to final rule for complex regulatory proceedings.
Not automatically, and not immediately. The NPRM proposed a public interest framework for certain event contract categories — but the proposed rule must still go through comment review, staff analysis, commissioner deliberation, and a final rule publication before any restriction takes effect. Platforms have a separate right to self-certify new contracts and can seek CFTC approval through that process even under an adopted rule.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 553), a notice-and-comment rulemaking follows three main phases: notice (the NPRM, already published), comment period (just closed), and final rule publication. After comments close, the agency must consider all substantive comments before issuing a final rule. For financial regulators like the CFTC, the review-to-final-rule phase typically runs 12–24 months — though there is no statutory maximum.
The CLARITY Act (a digital asset market structure bill in the Senate) is a separate legislative track. If enacted, it could clarify CFTC jurisdiction over prediction markets in ways that affect how the agency interprets its rulemaking authority. The two processes are independent: the rulemaking proceeds under existing law, while legislation could change the legal landscape before or after a final rule is adopted.
No immediate action is required. Existing contracts remain active under the current legal framework. Platforms are required to notify users before making any changes to available markets. The rulemaking process typically takes over a year to produce a final rule, and any adopted rule would include an effective date giving platforms time to comply.
Why Are Some Prediction Market Contracts Banned?
CEA §5c(c)(5)(C) permanently bans five categories. The full legal framework and what's safe to trade.
How to Comment on the CFTC NPRM
The comment period is now closed, but you can read public comments on the CFTC docket.
CLARITY Act: What It Means for Prediction Markets
The legislative track running parallel to the CFTC rulemaking — Senate floor vote expected Aug 3.
Prediction Market Regulatory Tracker
Live status of all active federal and state regulatory actions affecting prediction market traders.
What CFTC Rule 40.11 Actually Says
Plain-English breakdown of the three-step public interest framework and which contracts it targets.
Who Is Opposing Prediction Markets at the CFTC?
The consumer coalition, tribal gaming groups, and state AGs who filed opposition comments — and what they claimed.
Sources & Methodology
This page contains editorial analysis and APA procedural context, not legal advice. Confirm all regulatory developments directly at CFTC.gov.
