Rep. Steven Horsford (D-NV) and Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) are introducing a bill Thursday that would essentially ban sports betting on prediction markets such as Polymarket and Kalshi, the congressmen told The Nevada Independent in an exclusive interview. 

Prediction markets offer "event contracts" that let users wager on whether certain events will happen, such as a team winning a game, and make money by charging fees on those bets. The federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) regulates the companies, which do not pay state gaming taxes and have fewer consumer protections than traditional gaming operators. They are blocked from offering contracts in Nevada amid an ongoing legal battle.

"When it looks like sports betting, it acts like sports betting, and profits from sports betting, then it should follow the same rules as every other sportsbook," Horsford told The Nevada Independent in an interview. "Regardless of which app a consumer uses, they deserve the same protection, and that has been the gold standard of regulation that Nevada has been built on, and it's what we are working to ensure is protected."

Prediction markets have argued they don't qualify as gambling because they don't make money when bettors lose.

The Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act would prohibit the companies from listing contracts on sports and casino-style games nationwide. Such contracts directly compete with state-regulated gaming, which brings in more than a third of Nevada's total revenue and is increasingly funding other states as well. The labor unions UNITE HERE and Culinary Workers Union Local 226 as well as the American Gaming Association are backing the bill.

"Our gaming industry supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and generates revenue that helps fund our schools and roads, public safety and other essential services — something these other apps don't do," Horsford said.

Prediction markets have agreed they shouldn't be in the business of traditional casino games, which aren't aligned with how they operate. 

But their business model relies heavily on sports, which can compose up to 90 percent of trade volume. By one estimate, prediction markets made up more than a quarter of all sports betting during the World Cup. This year, Nevada sportsbooks reported their lowest wagering totals on the Super Bowl in a decade. 

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) has co-sponsored the Senate version of the bill, which is led by Sens. John Curtis (R-UT) and Adam Schiff (D-CA). When the senators introduced it, Kalshi co-founder and CEO Tarek Mansour posted on X that it was the "casino lobby hard at work."

Prediction markets and their opponents are spending heavily on lobbying in the hopes of influencing lawmakers as they decide how to approach the burgeoning industry. 

In a February statement, CFTC Chairman Mike Selig defended his commission's authority over that of the states in regulating prediction markets. Last month, the commission proposed a rule that would allow sports contracts nationwide, leaving open what Horsford calls a "backdoor" for sports betting, even in states where such wagers are illegal. 

Horsford and Amodei's bill would affirm that states and tribes have the ultimate authority to regulate gaming and could choose to impose stricter limits. It would not affect contracts that let ordinary Americans hedge against commercial risks — as one ice cream shop owner has been doing in anticipation of bad weather.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about President Donald Trump's position on the bill.

The Prediction Markets Are Gambling Act isn't the only proposed legislation that would crack down on prediction markets. Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) has introduced a bill called the Fair Markets and Sports Integrity Act that would ban the same types of contracts, but does not have a Republican co-sponsor or an explicit mention of state laws. 

A bill sponsored by Rep. Blake Moore (D-UT) and Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-CA), The Event Contract Enforcement Act, would go even further, prohibiting contracts on elections, terrorism, war and assassinations. Horsford and Amodei's bill could be more appealing because of its limited scope. 

"I'm proud and know that we will be able to make the case for why this targeted, bipartisan legislation should move forward," Horsford said. "Talking to colleagues on both sides of the aisle, they see this as a real problem."