Massachusetts Officials Wary of Minor Involvement in Prediction Markets

(AsiaGameHub) –   The Massachusetts Gaming Commission is worried that prediction markets are providing trading instruments to individuals under 21. State gambling officials have long maintained that prediction markets essentially offer sports betting—even to those who are too young to gamble.

Prediction Markets Enable Younger Users to Trade Event Contracts

Jordan Maynard, chair of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, voiced shared growing concerns that prediction markets are targeting users under 21—the legal gambling age in Massachusetts. In contrast to the gaming sector, prediction markets permit participation by anyone aged 18 or older.

During an appearance on WCVB’s “On the Record” program, Maynard criticized prediction markets as an unregulated form of gambling. This comes amid wider pushback against the industry, despite prediction market operators’ claims that their CFTC-regulated trading products do not qualify as gambling.

Adding to these worries, Maynard indicated that the loose ID verification practices of prediction market platforms could potentially allow even younger individuals to take part.

Maynard’s concerns weren’t limited to the underage gambling fostered by prediction markets; he also highlighted the lack of responsible gaming tools on event contract platforms. He noted that traders who experience harm from event contracts cannot access the same self-exclusion tools—such as BetBlocker—that are available to traditional gambling enthusiasts.

Prediction Markets Remain a Controversial Issue

The ambiguous position of prediction markets within the broader regulatory ecosystem has been a point of disagreement for months. While the CFTC has accused state regulators of overstepping their authority in attempts to regulate the sector, gambling regulators, tribal authorities, and some traditional gaming industry stakeholders have all firmly rejected the prediction market model.

Concerned experts have warned that CFTC oversight effectively allows prediction markets to operate in all 50 states, creating an uneven playing field—especially since their traditional betting counterparts are regulated on a state-by-state basis.

Meanwhile, some have raised worries that this model enables prediction market operators to offer event contracts even in states where sports betting is prohibited, setting a dangerous precedent. These states lack sufficient problem gambling education and are not prepared for the potential addictive consequences of prediction products.