US CFTC Chair: Arizona Criminal Prosecution of Kalshi "Completely Inappropriate," This Is a Jurisdictional Dispute, Not a Crime

The road to legalization of prediction markets faces strong resistance again. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes officially filed criminal charges against prediction platform Kalshi on March 17, accusing it of operating illegal gambling and accepting election bets. This move sparked strong disapproval from CFTC Chairman Mike Selig, who posted on X criticizing the criminal charges as “completely inappropriate” and declared it a power struggle over federal versus state jurisdiction.
(Background: Arizona accuses Kalshi of 20 criminal charges—unlicensed gambling + accepting election bets, escalating prediction market litigation)
(Additional context: Prediction market open interest surpasses $1 billion! OKX report: retail sentiment dominates pricing, three future development paths to watch)

Table of Contents

Toggle

• Attorney General: This is not prediction, this is illegal gambling
• CFTC Chairman’s strong support: Criminal charges are completely inappropriate
• “Federal priority” becomes the core of court battles

The US prediction market is embroiled in an unprecedented legal storm. On March 17, Taipei time, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes submitted criminal charges to Maricopa County Superior Court, accusing the well-known platform Kalshi of 20 criminal misdemeanors.

This is the first time in US history that a state government has taken “criminal” action against a major federally regulated prediction market platform, symbolizing an escalation in conflict between local law enforcement and federal regulation.

Attorney General: This is not prediction, this is illegal gambling

In a firm statement, Arizona AG Kris Mayes directly stated that although Kalshi claims to be an innovative financial prediction market, in essence it is operating an unauthorized illegal gambling business. The indictment highlights that Kalshi allows residents of Arizona to bet on the 2028 presidential election, 2026 gubernatorial race, and various state primaries, which severely violates Arizona law prohibiting “election betting.” Mayes said:

“No company can decide which laws to follow on its own. Kalshi is accepting bets involving the core of our democracy — elections — which is absolutely not permitted in Arizona.”

CFTC Chairman’s strong support: Criminal charges are completely inappropriate

In response to this industry-shaking criminal case, Mike Selig, appointed during Trump’s second term as CFTC Chairman, immediately posted on X to counter. He emphasized that Kalshi is a registered designated contract market (DCM) under CFTC regulation, with contracts under the federal Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), classified as commodity derivatives rather than local gambling. Selig stated:

“This is purely a jurisdictional dispute between federal and state authorities. Elevating this to criminal prosecution is completely inappropriate.”

He pointed out that state governments are attempting to overreach by using criminal means to interfere with federally approved financial products, and CFTC will evaluate all possible responses.

The Arizona Attorney General today filed criminal charges against one of our registered exchanges related to prediction markets. This is a jurisdictional dispute and entirely inappropriate as a criminal prosecution. The @CFTC is watching this closely and evaluating its options.
— Mike Selig (@ChairmanSelig) March 17, 2026

“Federal priority” becomes the core of court battles

Facing criminal charges, Kalshi responded that the allegations are “baseless” and invoked the principle of federal preemption. Kalshi argues that as a federally registered exchange, its operations are protected by federal law, and states should not interfere with its nationwide financial derivatives business. However, the situation remains challenging for Kalshi:

• Preventive lawsuits blocked: Kalshi has filed a federal lawsuit to stop Arizona’s enforcement, but a federal judge recently rejected its request for a temporary restraining order (TRO).
• Political divides: During 2025-2026, prediction market trading volume surged, raising concerns in several Democratic-led “blue states,” and this case could trigger other states to follow suit.
• Industry reshaping: The final outcome will determine whether prediction platforms must individually obtain gambling licenses in all 50 US states or can operate nationwide under a federal license.

Analysts believe Selig’s public stance signals potential strong federal intervention. As the 2026 midterm elections approach, this legal battle over “election prediction” not only affects Kalshi’s survival but could reshape the future regulatory landscape for decentralized and compliant prediction markets.