Prediction markets could find legal status in Nevada, but only if operators submit to the same state licensing and regulatory requirements that sportsbooks and casinos have followed for decades, Nevada Gaming Control Board chairman Mike Dreitzer said at an industry conference last week.
- Nevada Gaming Control Board chairman Mike Dreitzer said prediction market products could be welcomed if operators obtain state licenses and comply with the regulations governing casinos and sportsbooks.
- Dreitzer said Nevada is open to new gaming products but opposes what it views as attempts to circumvent established regulatory safeguards.
- Nevada's legal challenge against sports event contracts has become a nationally significant test of whether federally regulated prediction markets or state gaming regulators will control the future of sports event wagering.
Dreitzer said state regulators are reviewing a prediction-style product that appears to comply with the state's gaming regulations, signaling that the country's most influential gaming regulator is not opposed to the concept itself but to what it views as attempts to circumvent state oversight.
“We're open to that,” Dreitzer said at the National Council of Legislators from Gaming States' Summer Meeting. “We welcome innovation.”
Even as Nevada continues to challenge prediction markets in court, Dreitzer made clear he does not view the products themselves as inherently incompatible with regulated gaming. He acknowledged that certain aspects of the products, including their simplified pricing and user experience, could represent meaningful innovation.
“I think there are elements of the prediction product that are disruptive in the technology sense,” Dreitzer said. “I think people might get caught up in the old sportsbook lingo. ... I think the simplicity of the prediction product is very interesting.”
Nevada’s impact on prediction markets
The remarks offer perhaps the clearest indication yet that Nevada sees a potential future for prediction-style wagering within the traditional gaming framework, even as the state remains one of the leading challengers to federally regulated sports event contracts offered by companies such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
Dreitzer repeatedly distinguished between innovation and what he described as an "end run" around state gaming laws.
“If that includes a prediction product, I say, great, but let's do it the right way,” he said. “Let's make sure people are coming in.”
That approach reflects Nevada's broader legal position as it continues to challenge sports event contracts that state regulators contend constitute unlicensed sports betting. Nevada was among the first jurisdictions to issue cease-and-desist orders against prediction market operators, and the state has become a central player in litigation testing whether federally regulated event contracts can coexist with state gaming laws.
As courts weigh the issue, Dreitzer questioned why companies operating sports event contracts have resisted pursuing state gaming licenses while traditional casino operators, sportsbooks, and technology suppliers routinely undergo extensive licensing investigations and ongoing regulatory oversight. Nevada’s court challenge seeking to block prediction markets within state lines is awaiting a federal appellate court’s ruling and is among the most prominent legal cases shaping the industry’s future.
Nevada's position carries outsized influence because the state has long served as a model for commercial gaming regulation in the United States. Many state gaming agencies have adopted regulatory concepts pioneered in the nation's gambling capital, making Dreitzer’s comments closely watched by lawmakers and regulators confronting similar questions.
Dreitzer argued that decades of state regulation have created consumer protections that prediction market operators have yet to demonstrate. He cited requirements including know-your-customer procedures, geolocation controls, integrity monitoring, responsible gambling programs, truth-in-advertising standards, and anti-money laundering safeguards as examples of protections developed through years of regulatory experience.
“The reason this works is because there's a bedrock of regulation,” Dreitzer said. “Every time someone takes money out of their pocket and they put it into a machine or make a sports bet, they're getting a fair shake.”
He contrasted that framework with federally regulated designated contract markets, arguing they have not demonstrated comparable transparency or oversight.
“Show your work,” he said. “We can show our work. We can show 70 years of history.”
Nationwide implications
The debate extends well beyond Nevada.
This prediction market news comes as states across the country continue weighing their own responses to sports event contracts. States including New Jersey, Maryland, and Ohio have challenged sports event contracts, while Minnesota lawmakers approved legislation targeting certain prediction markets before federal legal action followed. Tribal gaming interests, including those in Oklahoma and California, have likewise argued federally regulated sports event contracts threaten existing tribal-state gaming compacts.
In his address to gaming industry stakeholders and state lawmakers last week, Dreitzer praised the growing alliance of commercial gaming states and tribal governments that have united against what they argue is federal encroachment on longstanding state authority over sports wagering.
“It's a very interesting coalition,” Dreitzer said. “Gaming states, non-gaming states and tribes altogether have galvanized around this issue.”
Supporters of prediction markets, meanwhile, contend the contracts fall under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and are authorized under federal commodities law rather than state gaming statutes. They argue the products serve legitimate risk-management and information-discovery functions, and several companies have continued expanding sports event offerings despite mounting legal challenges.
For Nevada, the question is no longer whether prediction-style products can exist. Instead, Dreitzer suggested, the issue is whether they will ultimately operate under the same licensing, consumer protection, and oversight standards as every other regulated gaming product in the country.
