---
type: source
title: "Prediction Markets at a Crossroads: Preemption, Enforcement and Rulemaking"
author: "Norton Rose Fulbright"
url: https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-us/knowledge/publications/ad8a494a/prediction-markets-at-a-crossroads-preemption-enforcement-and-rulemaking
date: 2026-04-30
domain: internet-finance
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: unprocessed
priority: medium
tags: [prediction-markets, cftc, preemption, enforcement, rulemaking, legal-analysis, norton-rose]
intake_tier: research-task
---

## Content

Norton Rose Fulbright published a comprehensive synthesis of prediction market regulation on April 30, 2026 — the day the CFTC ANPRM comment period closed.

**Key points from Norton Rose synthesis:**

**Preemption framework:**
- CFTC brings complaints in response to states' criminal charges against CFTC-regulated DCMs
- Judge Roth dissent (9th Circuit): Kalshi's sports-related offerings are "virtually indistinguishable from betting products available on DraftKings and FanDuel" — citing strong presumption against preemption in areas traditionally regulated by states
- CFTC's preemption argument rests on field preemption + conflict preemption under CEA

**Enforcement context:**
- CFTC's advisory (February 2026): CFTC retains authority to police illegal trading in prediction markets including insider trading/misappropriation
- CFTC Rule 180.1 prohibits manipulative or deceptive conduct in connection with commodity contracts
- MLB-CFTC MOU (March 19, 2026): First between a professional sports league and CFTC — framework for cooperation on prediction market integrity

**Rulemaking direction:**
- ANPRM: CFTC seeking input on statutory core principles, types of event contracts that may be prohibited as contrary to the public interest, cost-benefit considerations
- Commission asks specifically about: "events controlled by a single individual or small group" (insider trading risk), cross-market manipulation

**The 9th Circuit context (key for MetaDAO):**
- Dissenting judge called sports contracts "virtually indistinguishable from sports betting" — using a functional equivalence test
- Majority held CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction for CFTC-registered DCMs — using a regulatory status test

This functional-vs-regulatory-status distinction is crucial: the dissent's functional test (does this look like sports betting?) could be extended to ask "does this look like gambling?" about ANY market. The majority's regulatory status test (are you a registered DCM?) is more favorable to prediction markets but doesn't help unregistered on-chain protocols.

## Agent Notes

**Why this matters:** Norton Rose Fulbright is one of the most prolific prediction market regulatory analysts (they published three separate analyses in March-April 2026). Their April 30 synthesis represents a comprehensive assessment at the moment the comment period closed. The absence of any mention of governance markets, MetaDAO, futarchy, or decision markets in their comprehensive synthesis is the strongest single confirmation of the 32-session gap.

A major law firm's "crossroads" synthesis — covering preemption theory, enforcement trajectory, and rulemaking direction — without mentioning governance markets confirms: the legal profession has not conceptualized MetaDAO's TWAP-settled conditional markets as a separate regulatory category.

**What surprised me:** The 9th Circuit dissent's functional equivalence test ("virtually indistinguishable from sports betting") is actually a favorable signal for MetaDAO's governance markets — if the functional test asks "does this look like sports betting?", a conditional governance token market settling against TWAP looks NOTHING like sports betting. The dissent's reasoning, if adopted, would create stronger structural differentiation for governance markets than the majority's regulatory-status-based reasoning.

**What I expected but didn't find:** Any mention of decision markets, governance markets, futarchy, MetaDAO, or TWAP settlement as a separate category from sports/election event contracts. Norton Rose covered the 9th Circuit, state enforcement battles, insider trading, and rulemaking — all without any governance market analysis.

**KB connections:**
- [[the DAO Reports rejection of voting as active management is the central legal hurdle for futarchy because prediction market trading must prove fundamentally more meaningful than token voting]] — the 9th Circuit dissent's functional test creates a parallel question for futarchy: does prediction market TRADING in governance markets prove meaningfully different from voting? The dissent's logic suggests the functional test might actually help futarchy markets (they look unlike sports betting) more than it hurts.
- MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside the CFTC event contract definition because TWAP settlement against internal token price is endogenous rather than an external observable event — Norton Rose's comprehensive synthesis doesn't mention this distinction, confirming it as legally original analysis

**Extraction hints:**
- The 9th Circuit functional vs. regulatory-status distinction is worth extracting as a KB enrichment on the regulatory defensibility claim
- The MLB-CFTC MOU is worth noting as evidence of increasing regulatory infrastructure around event contracts — sports leagues becoming integrated into prediction market oversight creates another layer of distinction from governance markets (no sports league integration possible or necessary for governance markets)

**Context:** Norton Rose published three prediction market analyses in March-April 2026, making them the most prolific law firm commentator on this regulatory moment. The "crossroads" framing reflects genuine legal uncertainty — the preemption question isn't settled and the rulemaking is just beginning. Despite this comprehensive attention, governance markets are invisible.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)

PRIMARY CONNECTION: MetaDAO conditional governance markets may fall outside the CFTC event contract definition because TWAP settlement against internal token price is endogenous rather than an external observable event

WHY ARCHIVED: Norton Rose's comprehensive April 30 synthesis (most prolific prediction market law firm commentator) without any governance market mention is the strongest single source confirming 32-session gap — negative evidence that is itself a claim about the legal landscape

EXTRACTION HINT: The 9th Circuit dissent's functional test ("looks like sports betting") is potentially more favorable to governance markets than the majority's regulatory-status test — this is an unexpected angle worth developing
