Polymarket has been accused of paying influencers to promote fake trades and fabricate winnings as part of marketing efforts conducted across the US, potentially leading to regulatory ramifications for the prediction markets operator.
At the time of writing, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have yet to comment or respond to questions related to the matter, but a Polymarket spokesperson did address the accusations on June 23.
According to the spokesperson, Polymarket will begin conducting a “comprehensive audit of active promotional content to ensure it complies with our standards, as well as applicable regulatory and legal disclosure requirements."
Despite the potential legal consequences, an investigation conducted by President Donald Trump’s administration is not currently expected, given the family’s ties to prediction markets and CFTC Chairman Michael Selig.
While the CFTC and FTC could focus on Polymarket’s alleged illegal marketing efforts, any regulatory fallout would most likely stem from civil lawsuits brought forth by bettors who lost money due to the fake advertising.
Polymarket was originally prohibited from conducting business in the US during 2022, but eventually gained approval from the CFTC to offer event contract trading in November 2025.
Earlier on June 23, Polymarket was named as the official US prediction market partner of Bundesliga, established by Relevent which collaborates with the German football league to expand marketing and sales activities across the Americas.
Beginning with the 2026-2027 season, Polymarket users will be able to trade event contracts on Bundesliga match outcomes, while the operator is also set to gain exclusive league and club intellectual property rights to use in a listed prediction market format.
Polymarket has yet to form a separate commercial agreement with Sportradar, however, which maintains exclusive rights to distribute official league data.
Michigan Judge Paul Maloney denied Polymarket’s temporary injunction motion against AG Dana Nessel on June 17, ruling its prediction products fail to fall under the statutory definition of ‘swaps’
