Nevada sportsbooks used a regulatory meeting this week to push back hard against prediction markets, saying platforms like Kalshi are hurting their business and undercutting the state’s regulated gaming model.
The comments landed against the backdrop of Nevada’s ongoing lawsuit to stop prediction markets from offering sports event contracts in the state. Regulators say that case is about enforcing basic gaming law, not protecting legacy Nevada sportsbook operators.
The issue is especially sensitive in Nevada because the state has already made clear that prediction markets are not supposed to be operating there without a gaming license. Nevada regulators have repeatedly argued that sports event contracts are indistinguishable from sports betting and therefore fall under state jurisdiction, not just the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s.
Impacting betting volume at ‘high level’
At the Nevada Gaming Control Board meeting, Boomer’s Sportsbook CEO Joe Asher and Caesars Digital President Eric Hession argued prediction markets are siphoning off business while trying to sidestep the same rules licensed books follow. Nevada sportsbook handle is down $249 million year-over-year.
“At a high level, it has to be impacting us from a volume perspective,” Hession said in the meeting. “Regulated states report the sportsbook growth in volume has slowed a bit. We’re not seeing a significant impact to our revenue line yet, but it’s hard to tell.”
The executives’ message was blunt: If a product looks like sports betting and takes action on game outcomes, it should not be allowed to compete in Nevada outside the state’s regulatory system.
That argument reflects the broader industry view that prediction markets are not a separate category so much as a workaround with lawsuits ongoing across the country. Nevada’s licensed books have been especially vocal because the state’s gaming economy depends on a tightly controlled regulatory framework, and operators say unlicensed event contracts threaten that model.
Nevada vs. prediction markets
Nevada has already moved aggressively against Kalshi in court, first sending a cease-and-desist order in March 2025, then filing suit to block the company from offering sports event contracts without a state license. Regulators won a preliminary injunction earlier this year, and the company’s efforts to keep operating in the state have been repeatedly checked by state courts.
Last month, Nevada asked a federal judge to hold Kalshi in contempt for violating the initial preliminary injunction.
Nevada officials have also extended the fight beyond Kalshi, with a similar injunction issued against Polymarket. In the state’s view, the products are gambling, and the companies are operating without the approvals required of anyone else taking bets in Nevada.
Why sportsbooks care
If prediction markets can offer sports event contracts in states with legal sportsbooks, they can compete for the same customers while avoiding the same tax, licensing and compliance burdens.
“The bigger impact is (prediction markets can) operate with a big competitive advantage,” Hession said. “They don’t have to pay taxes, they don’t have to comply with regulations, they can target 18-year-olds.
“Whatever the outcome is, eventually there will be defined rules and we’ll be able to participate. Unfortunately, we’re falling behind quickly in states that are allowing competitors to get ahead of us.”
That creates a direct economic incentive for operators to keep pressing regulators and lawmakers to shut them down or regulate them like sportsbooks.
Nevada is a particularly important test case because it is the country’s most established gaming jurisdictions and has been among the most aggressive states in pushing back. If prediction markets can’t survive there, the prediction markets industry’s broader argument for state-by-state legitimacy gets weaker.
