Prediction markets are coming under increasing scrutiny in the US amid claims that they are operating as de facto gambling products while avoiding state-level regulation.

As trading volumes rise across sports and political outcomes, industry figures argue that these platforms are exploiting legal loopholes to offer wagering-style services in jurisdictions where sports betting remains prohibited.

Concerns were highlighted during a recent appearance on CBS News‘s Face the Nation by Chris Christie, a key architect of the legal challenge that led to the repeal of PASPA. Now serving as a Strategic Advisor to the American Gaming Association, Christie accused prediction market operators of mischaracterising their products to avoid gambling oversight.

Christie rejected claims that prediction markets are distinct from betting, arguing that outcome-based contracts tied to sporting events function in the same way as traditional wagers.

He warned that by operating outside state regulatory frameworks, these platforms avoid tax obligations, integrity monitoring, and consumer protection requirements that licensed operators must meet.

A central issue raised was the absence of safeguards around age verification and integrity controls. Christie noted that regulated sportsbooks are subject to strict rules governing marketing to minors, monitoring of suspicious betting activity, and cooperation with leagues and regulators.

He argued that prediction markets currently face no equivalent obligations, despite offering products linked to live sporting outcomes.

The geographic reach of prediction markets has also drawn criticism. Christie pointed to their availability in states such as Alabama, Texas, and Georgia, where voters and lawmakers have repeatedly rejected the legalisation of sports betting.

He argued that this undermines state sovereignty and creates an uneven competitive environment, allowing unregulated platforms to operate nationally while licensed operators remain confined to approved jurisdictions.