Sen. Marsha Blackburn says Congress is not done looking into the rapid expansion of and prediction markets.
In fact, Wednesday’s hearing may have only been the beginning.
Blackburn, R-Tenn., who chairs the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Technology, and Data Privacy, told Fox News Digital/OutKick after the hearing that lawmakers now have to determine where Congress should step in and where states should remain in control. Plus, she stressed the importance of protecting the integrity of American sports before the problem gets worse.
“One of the things for consideration today [was] looking at the impact on the and then saying, all right, how do we make certain that we preserve fair play,” Blackburn said.
The hearing, titled “No Sure Bets: Protecting Sports Integrity in America,” examined the rise of legal sports betting, sports-related prediction markets, gambling addiction, social media advertising and recent scandals involving alleged manipulation in professional and college sports.
Blackburn said one of the biggest takeaways was the need to figure out the proper role for federal regulators versus state gaming officials.
“You heard a good bit today about the , the difference there against what you have as betting and gaming,” Blackburn told Fox News Digital/OutKick. “And we are going to have to parse out what part of that should be federal and what is best left to state regulators.”
That question sat at the center of the hearing.
Sports betting is currently regulated primarily at the state level. But prediction markets, which allow users to trade contracts tied to future events, have argued that they fall under federal commodities law and the .
That distinction has become more important as some prediction markets have moved into sports-related event contracts.
To critics, that looks a lot like sports betting with a different name.
“You do have to ask that legitimate question, what part of this prediction market participation is going to fall into that betting?” Blackburn said. “And what part is called by just another name, betting? And then what is more of a traditional prediction market, if there is such a thing at this point, and should stay with the CFTC.”
American Gaming Association President and CEO Bill Miller was much more direct during the hearing.
Miller accused prediction markets of operating as “backdoor sports betting operations” and argued they are undercutting the state and tribal gaming systems that have been built since the struck down the federal sports betting ban (PASPA) in 2018.
“They are running sports books at a national level without any of the regulatory constraints and frameworks that have been created either in Tennessee or in any other state that has chosen to legalize sports betting,” Miller testified.
Former Rep. Patrick McHenry, who now serves as senior advisor for the , pushed back.
McHenry argued that prediction markets are fundamentally different from sportsbooks because users trade against each other, while the platform collects transaction fees.
“In a casino or sportsbook, the house sets the odds and profits when customers lose,” McHenry said. “In a prediction market exchange, participants trade with one another, while the platform earns transaction fees for facilitating the market.”
Several senators were not buying it.
Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, said he would have a hard time explaining the distinction to people back home.
“If I were hearing that back in Utah, I would say I think something might happen, Im going to put money down on it, and I have the chance of either making more money or losing money on that,” Curtis said. “Tell me how that is not gambling.”
Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev. put it even more pla
