Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is advising the American Gaming Association about the issue of prediction markets entering sports-betting markets. One of the key figures behind the national spread of sports betting in the United States has taken up the fight against prediction markets as a form of wagering. Christie shared his views on the ongoing fight between prediction markets and gaming regulators across the country in an interview with the Review-Journal prior to Sunday’s Super Bowl. Christie believes educating people about how prediction markets operate will be a key part of his work.
“I think the entire country is now understanding what’s going on here, which is the prediction markets are acting illegally in all 50 states in the country,” he said. “In the 40 states that have legalized sports gambling, they’re not complying with regulations, they’re not paying their taxes, they’re marketing to teenagers and they’re not protecting consumers or the integrity of the leagues.” “In the 10 states where the voters or the legislature or both have determined they don’t want sports gambling in their state, in places like Alabama, Georgia, Texas, they’re saying, ‘Too bad. We’re going to let people gamble on sports in your state anyway,’ and blatantly violate the state law. So no matter which state you are in in the country, these prediction markets are violating states’ rights and so I think where this fight is going to be won in the courts across the country where states are standing up for their own rights.”
Nevada recently joined Massachusetts with a different strategy to fight prediction markets. The Nevada Gaming Control Board recently filed a lawsuit against Blockratize Inc., doing business as Polymarket, in Carson City District Court. Earlier this month, District Judge Jason Woodbury sided with the Control Board on a temporary restraining order, preventing Polymarket from writing derivatives contracts in Nevada ahead of a Wednesday hearing. Christie believes it was a good move because he believes state courts may be better invested in protecting states’ rights. “The reason is that the state courts understand state laws better than the federal courts do,” Christie said. “They understand the importance of protecting state statutes and state regulations. I think state courts will be much better informed of that than federal courts will be.”
Leave a Reply