Infiniti Intelligence Hourly Briefing — Oct 12, 2026 · 8:54 PM ET

The CFTC’s anticipated proposal specifically addressing sports contracts on prediction markets remains pending, according to Deadspin’s rundown of Friday’s interim final rule. The outstanding proposal is identified as RIN 3038-AF82.

That leaves two distinct regulatory developments for market participants to track: the interim rule’s treatment of casino gambling and the separate, still-awaited proposal for sports contracts. Friday’s action should not be read as the arrival of that sports-specific proposal.

Sports rules and state access

According to Deadspin, the CFTC’s interim final rule excludes “casino-style gambling” from the definition of swaps. That change concerns the boundaries of regulated products; the pending RIN 3038-AF82 proposal would address prediction-market sports contracts specifically.

Meanwhile, Kalshi has geofenced its sports contracts in four states. The supplied material does not identify those states or provide a timetable for the sports-specific proposal, limiting what can be concluded about the geographic reach and timing of further changes.

What it means for prediction markets

• Separate the rulemaking milestones: The interim final rule and the pending sports-contract proposal are different developments. The former does not establish that the latter has been issued.
• Access is already geographically limited: Kalshi’s geofencing affects sports-contract availability in four states, even as the dedicated federal proposal remains pending.
• Key details remain unresolved: The available material provides neither the four states’ names nor a release date for RIN 3038-AF82.

Former Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who helped give federal regulators powers to prohibit certain event contracts, now represents Kalshi through a lobbying firm that has received $480,000 from the company since 2024, according to the New York Post, citing Ars Technica.

Her advocacy comes as Kalshi and rival Polymarket face a nationwide legal dispute over whether federal financial regulation permits them to offer sports wagers without following state gambling laws. The dispute could reach the Supreme Court, the Post reported.

From restrictions to support

As Senate Agriculture Committee chair in 2010, Lincoln helped draft provisions of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law authorizing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to prohibit certain event contracts on public-interest grounds. The legislation passed. In a July exchange with the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Lincoln identified contracts involving the Super Bowl, Kentucky Derby and Masters golf tournament as potential targets, arguing that they amounted to gambling rather than commercial activity.

Lincoln maintained a distinction between sports betting and economically useful financial contracts in August 2024. In a letter opposing a Biden administration proposal to broaden event-contract restrictions, she argued that sports results did not have economic consequences comparable to major elections and other events, according to the Post.

Kalshi introduced sports-event contracts in January 2025, months after hiring Lincoln’s firm. Lincoln subsequently urged the CFTC not to prohibit those contracts. In comments submitted this year, she pointed to sporting events’ effects on advertising, apparel sales and hospitality as evidence of their commercial importance, and argued that markets should determine which contracts have value.

Federal oversight at issue

Lincoln has also advocated exclusive CFTC jurisdiction over prediction markets, opposing state efforts to apply gambling laws to sports-event contracts. Lincoln Policy Group told Ars Technica that her position reflects a belief that appropriately regulated prediction markets—including sports contracts—can meet legitimate financial needs. The firm also cited Kalshi’s consumer safeguards and federal oversight as advantages over unregulated offshore platforms.

Kalshi declined to address Lincoln’s change in position but defended its products to the Post, saying businesses such as advertisers, apparel companies, bars and hotels have exposure to sporting outcomes and can use its markets to hedge those risks. The Post said it had sought comment from Lincoln Policy Group.

What it means for prediction markets

• Jurisdiction is central: The legal dispute concerns whether federal oversight allows sports-event contracts to operate outside state gambling requirements.
• Commercial purpose is contested: Lincoln’s evolving arguments highlight the disagreement over whether sports contracts primarily facilitate gambling or provide useful business hedges.
• The legal outcome remains unresolved: A dispute that could reach the Supreme Court leaves the regulatory treatment of these contracts uncertain.