Prediction Markets; Public Interest Determinations - Proposed Rules

An anonymous retail participant supports the proposed rulemaking but argues that the public-interest factors should specifically include the retail solicitation environment, advertising accuracy, and the presence of responsible-trading provisions. The commenter highlights how certain prediction markets use marketing tactics similar to sports wagering without the corresponding consumer protections.

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.

Gregg Levine opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it improperly deregulates prediction markets by mischaracterizing them as information markets rather than online gambling. He contends that the platforms reward insiders and harm retail users, and he urges the Commission to impose stricter consumer protections and acknowledge state-level gambling regulations.