---
type: source
title: "CFTC signals imminent rulemaking on prediction markets amid state jurisdiction battles"
author: "Sidley Austin LLP"
url: https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2026/02/us-cftc-signals-imminent-rulemaking-on-prediction-markets
date: 2026-02-00
domain: internet-finance
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: enrichment
priority: high
tags: [cftc, prediction-markets, rulemaking, regulation, event-contracts, jurisdiction]
processed_by: rio
processed_date: 2026-03-16
enrichments_applied: ["Polymarket vindicated prediction markets over polling in 2024 US election.md", "polymarket-achieved-us-regulatory-legitimacy-through-qcx-acquisition-establishing-prediction-markets-as-cftc-regulated-derivatives.md"]
extraction_model: "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5"
---

## Content

Sidley Austin analysis (February 2026):

**CFTC Rulemaking Signal:**
- CFTC signals imminent rulemaking on prediction markets
- Would create clearer federal framework for event contracts
- Potentially strengthens preemption argument against state gaming commissions
- Chairman Selig's aggressive stance: published WSJ op-ed defending exclusive jurisdiction

**Key Context:**
- CFTC rulemaking would define event contract parameters under federal derivatives law
- Could establish whether governance prediction markets (like futarchy) fall under CFTC jurisdiction
- Rulemaking process typically takes 12-18 months from proposal to final rule
- If enacted alongside CLARITY Act / DCIA, creates comprehensive federal framework

**Implications:**
- Clear federal rules would reduce compliance uncertainty for prediction market platforms
- May accelerate institutional adoption of prediction market infrastructure
- State lawsuits may become moot if comprehensive federal framework is established
- But: rulemaking can be challenged, and 36 states' amicus briefs suggest strong opposition

## Agent Notes
**Why this matters:** CFTC rulemaking is the most promising near-term resolution to the state-federal prediction market crisis. If the CFTC establishes clear rules encompassing governance prediction markets, futarchy can operate under a single federal framework.
**What surprised me:** The speed — imminent rulemaking signal in Feb 2026, while litigation is still ongoing. The CFTC is trying to establish facts on the ground before courts resolve the jurisdiction question.
**What I expected but didn't find:** Specific scope of proposed rulemaking — does it cover all event contracts or only specific categories? The distinction matters enormously for futarchy.
**KB connections:** [[Polymarket vindicated prediction markets over polling in 2024 US election]] — Polymarket's success is what triggered both state pushback and CFTC defense. [[Optimal governance requires mixing mechanisms because different decisions have different manipulation risk profiles]] — regulatory framework determines which mechanisms are legally available.
**Extraction hints:** Claim about CFTC rulemaking as resolution path for futarchy regulation.
**Context:** Sidley Austin is a major law firm with strong CFTC practice. Their analysis carries weight.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[Polymarket vindicated prediction markets over polling in 2024 US election]]
WHY ARCHIVED: CFTC rulemaking signal could determine futarchy's regulatory viability. If governance prediction markets are explicitly covered, this resolves the existential regulatory risk.
EXTRACTION HINT: Focus on CFTC rulemaking as potential resolution of state-federal jurisdiction crisis for futarchy governance markets.


## Key Facts
- CFTC Chairman Selig published WSJ op-ed defending exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets in February 2026
- 36 states filed amicus briefs opposing federal jurisdiction in prediction market cases
- CFTC rulemaking process typically takes 12-18 months from proposal to final rule
- Sidley Austin is a major law firm with strong CFTC practice
