Prediction markets allow their participants to trade event contracts based on binary outcomes of future events, ranging from the outcome of an NFL playoff game to how many times the Vice President will clap during the State of the Union. The price of these contracts (for example, a 30-cent event contract may pay $1 if the event occurs) reflects the market’s assessment of the probability that a given outcome will occur.
States continue to lead the way in actions to enforce consumer protection laws against junk fees across a growing range of industries. In a recent Husch Blackwell Government Enforcement Investigation and Compliance webinar, that included its Antitrust & Competition group, the Texas AG’s cases against junk fees charged by major hotel and booking chains were highlighted and broader state and federal junk fee initiatives were summarized. Since then, two significant new state developments have concentrated attention on junk fees.
In a rare exercise of federal emergency authority, on July 14, 2026, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) did two things that, individually, would each be unusual and together are noteworthy: it stayed an emergency rule self-filed by a regulated exchange, and then affirmatively ordered that exchange to honor contracts it had already proposed to unwind. The target was KalshiEX LLC (Kalshi), a CFTC-designated contract market (DCM) for event contracts. The catalyst was a Michigan state court order that the CFTC determined raised questions of federal preemption under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and the functioning of a federally regulated derivatives market.
On June 10, 2026, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking public comment on amendments to CFTC Regulation 40.11 and the addition of a new Appendix F to part 40, addressing event contracts, commonly traded on so-called “prediction markets.” The proposal would specify which event contracts may be subject to a determination that they are contrary to the public interest, set out the factors the Commission would apply, and add a definition of “gaming” together with a rule for when an event contract “involves” an underlying activity.
On February 24, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Enforcement announced sweeping revisions to its Enforcement Manual (the Manual). A central feature of the revisions is a redesigned Wells process, which gives investigation targets a chance to be heard before the Commission authorizes an enforcement action. Most notably, the revised manual instructs staff to provide Wells notice recipients with “salient, probative evidence” before a response is due, addressing the information imbalance that has traditionally characterized SEC investigations. Then, on May 18, 2026, the SEC announced a second major pro-defendant shift: it rescinded Rule 202.5(e)—the decades-old “no-deny” policy that had required settling defendants to agree not to publicly deny the agency’s allegations as a condition of settlement.
In the last year, Nebraska, Texas, and other states have passed foreign influence laws requiring disclosure of lobbying and other advocacy activities on behalf of foreign actors. Although these so-called “baby FARA” laws are modeled after their federal counterpart, the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), they often lack the exemptions on which businesses and other entities have long relied, and they differ in other important respects as well. These state laws are broad enough to potentially capture transactions with foreign-owned subsidiaries operating in the U.S. that would not otherwise be subject to FARA.
Rebecca Furdek recently published an article in Wisconsin Lawyer magazine reviewing the first year of the second Trump administration. She discusses three primary trends: the use of executive orders, deregulation across federal agencies, and white-collar enforcement priorities. As Rebecca explains, “[t]he second Trump term started with a splash in both the federal regulatory and enforcement
After years of regulatory uncertainty, the SEC and CFTC are moving toward a unified approach to digital asset oversight, launching a joint harmonization initiative to align definitions, streamline compliance, and reduce fragmentation. For crypto and financial services firms, this effort signals clearer pathways for product development and cross‑market operations—though lasting certainty will hinge on sustained
On September 23, we launched our Government Enforcement, Compliance & Investigations webinar series, a new monthly webinar program covering Department of Justice criminal enforcement, False Claims Act, antitrust, and state attorney general topics.
In the kickoff webinar, Jody Rudman, Wendy Arends, Matt Diehr, and I joined in a broad discussion on government enforcement. Jody and I