Miami Beach

About Miami Beach

The American Gaming Association estimates that the exchanges have siphoned more than $1.3 billion in would-be tax revenue from states. One of the AGA’s primary spokespeople pin its fight against prediction markets is former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who championed the PASPA case to the Supreme Court.

As with PASPA, this matter revolves heavily around federalism versus states’ rights. Traditional sports betting is governed by individual state regulators with varying laws and regulations. Federal derivatives are regulated by the CFTC, which has fully embraced prediction markets under US President Donald Trump after rejecting them in previous administrations.

The web of lawsuits and court rulings involving prediction markets has greatly complicated the issue of jurisdiction. Kalshi has been forced to limit trading in multiple states, most notably Nevada, and the CFTC has gone to unprecedented lengths to protect its licencees. This includes suing nine states directly and issuing emergency orders to reject state mandates.

About Miami Beach

Based on its projections, EKG sees the overall sports wagering industry growing 8% year-over-year, outpacing the current baseline growth rate of 5% (a figure that strips out temporary boosts from the 2026 World Cup).

Assuming that 8% spurt is realized, it’d be impressive because since the end of the 2025 football season, only Missouri and Alberta, Canada joined the live and legal sports betting party with Arkansas opening to DraftKings and FanDuel earlier this year.

Prediction markets have proven effective at attracting sharp bettors and high-rollers who are often limited or banned by traditional sportsbooks. However, consumer surveys indicate that when given the choice between a sportsbook and a yes/no exchange, most recreational bettors still prefer the traditional sportsbook interface. That dynamic helps explain why prediction markets remain in second place.

What is Miami Beach?

The first was direct marketing (emails, texts, push notifications). Citing randomised studies, the committee noted that limiting direct marketing resulted in reduced betting and fewer short-term harms. 

Referencing an Australian study on direct marketing and its link to gambling harms, Dr Philip Newall, senior lecturer at the University of Bristol noted that “causality was established by getting a random subset of participants to opt-out of receiving direct marketing offers”.

It was found that “this group then self-reported significantly lower expenditure and harms [ … ] over the next two weeks”.