Utah Governor Spencer Cox has publicly criticized Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chairman Michael Selig over the legality of sports-related prediction markets, signalling a potential court battle between the state and federal authorities.
In a post on X, Cox rejected the CFTC’s position that such markets fall under federal derivatives regulation.
Cox wrote: “These prediction markets you are breathlessly defending are gambling, pure and simple.”
Cox added: “They are destroying the lives of families and countless Americans, especially young men. They have no place in Utah.”
He concluded: “I will use every resource within my disposal as governor of the sovereign state of Utah and under the Constitution of the United States to beat you in court.”
The remarks appear to respond to Selig’s recent public defence of prediction markets, which has included opinion pieces, video statements and legal filings backing the sector.
The CFTC has argued that event-based contracts function as financial instruments rather than gambling products, placing them within federal jurisdiction.
The disagreement reflects a broader nationwide dispute over whether prediction market contracts, particularly those tied to sports outcomes, should be regulated as financial derivatives or as betting activity under state gambling laws.
Several states have already pursued legal challenges against operators offering such markets.
Selig has taken an increasingly direct stance on the issue in recent weeks. In prior public comments he warned opponents that regulatory disputes would likely be resolved through litigation, telling challengers they would “see you in court.”
Earlier this month, Selig defended prediction markets in a Wall Street Journal opinion article and on X, while the CFTC filed an amicus brief supporting Crypto.com in ongoing litigation concerning event-contract products. The agency has also included prediction-market executives in its Innovation Council as part of a broader effort to formalise oversight of the sector.
The CFTC has historically treated event contracts as commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act, though sports-related contracts remain the most contested category among state regulators
