Prediction Markets; Public Interest Determinations - Proposed Rules

Sportradar Group AG supports the Commission's factor-based framework for public interest determinations regarding prediction markets. They advocate for specific refinements including clearer definitions for "league-verified" data, minimum quality standards for settlement data, and the integration of proven sports integrity monitoring organizations into the surveillance framework.

Oregon Consumer Justice opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it prioritizes market expansion and profit over necessary consumer protections against the risks of gamified prediction markets. The organization advocates for more robust policies, vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and collaboration with other federal and state agencies to protect retail users from financial harm and addiction.

Judith Heavey-staeuble opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it improperly deregulates prediction markets by narrowly defining "gaming" to exclude what she characterizes as online gambling. She expresses concern over the wealth distribution of these markets, the potential for insider trading, and the lack of consumer protections for retail users.

Edward Landler opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it improperly deregulates prediction markets by narrowly defining "gaming" to exclude what he characterizes as online gambling. He expresses concern over the wealth distribution of these markets, the potential for insider trading, and the lack of consumer protections for retail users.

Brian Erenstones opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it incorrectly classifies prediction markets as derivatives rather than online gambling. He contends that the rule favors the platforms' interests over consumer protections and urges the Commission to impose stricter gambling-style regulations and state-level protections.

Ann Gullo opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it improperly deregulates prediction markets by narrowly defining "gaming" to exclude what she characterizes as online gambling. She expresses concern over the wealth distribution of these markets, the potential for insider trading, and the lack of consumer protections for retail users.

Grace Nasseh opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it improperly deregulates prediction markets by treating them as derivatives rather than online gambling. The commenter highlights the potential for significant financial harm to users and calls for stricter consumer protections similar to those found in state-regulated sportsbooks.

Sue Lundquist opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it improperly deregulates prediction markets by treating them as derivatives rather than online gambling. The commenter highlights the potential for financial harm to consumers and calls for stricter consumer protections similar to those found in state-regulated sportsbooks.

Erik Haley opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it improperly deregulates prediction markets by narrowly defining "gaming" to exclude what he characterizes as online gambling. He expresses concern over the lack of consumer protections, the potential for insider trading, and the fact that these platforms may be circumventing state gambling laws.

Amylynn Karnbach, representing One Day At A Time Gift Shop, opposes the proposed rule because she argues it improperly deregulates prediction markets that function like online gambling. She expresses concern over the lack of consumer protections, the potential for insider trading, and the harm caused to retail users.