Maryland Regulators Face Pressure from Casino Lobbyists

Lobbyists’ Influence on Maryland Regulators

Documents obtained through a public records request show that the American Gaming Association (AGA), representing commercial casinos, provided Maryland officials with a sample letter urging the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to prohibit sports-related event contracts offered by companies such as Kalshi and Polymarket.

Eight days later, in April 2025, the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Agency sent a letter to the CFTC that mirrored the AGA draft almost word for word, adding only state-specific language. Critics argue this reliance on industry lobbying undermines the agency’s independence.

A Growing National Dispute

Sports event contracts—like wagers on whether Team USA will win its next World Cup match—are currently traded on CFTC-regulated markets. The debate centers on whether these contracts should be treated as federally regulated financial products or as sports betting subject to state gambling laws.

Industry experts note conflicting court decisions across the country, with some rulings favoring federal jurisdiction and others supporting state authority. The uncertainty has created a complex legal landscape that could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court or require congressional action.

Independence and Accountability

Critics, including Sean Patrick Maloney of the Coalition for Prediction Markets, describe the Maryland letter as a “smoking gun” showing regulators taking cues directly from casino lobbyists. Maloney argues that citizens deserve independent oversight, not agencies “running errands for casino lobbyists.”

Maryland officials insist they acted independently, citing cease-and-desist letters sent to prediction market operators in April 2025. The AGA defends its position, claiming prediction markets evade state laws and siphon tax revenue. Opponents counter that prediction markets operate differently from casinos, offering peer-to-peer trading rather than house-driven odds.

The controversy highlights the delicate balance between state regulators and the gaming industry, raising broader questions about transparency, independence, and the future of sports prediction markets in the United States.