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.
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 May 26, 2026, Mark Tobey and Emily Loftis presented the latest edition of Husch Blackwell’s Government Enforcement, Compliance & Investigations webinar series.
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.
2025 marked another notable year in State Attorneys General (AG) enforcement, with both a sharp uptick in multistate AG actions filed against the federal government and significant actions targeting the private sector across industries. We will highlight two issue areas here—antitrust and consumer protection—and describe the escalating friction between State AGs and the federal government as well as distill this year’s trends into actionable takeaways for businesses as we enter 2026.
On December 11, Matt Diehr, Kyle Gilster, and Rebecca Furdek presented this month’s session in Husch Blackwell’s Government Enforcement, Compliance & Investigations webinar series. They highlighted the capabilities of the firm’s State Attorney’s General practice through a robust discussion about trends in multistate litigation. The presentation focused on enforcement trends in consumer
This year, the Department of Justice (DOJ) increased its focus on white-collar crime enforcement in some areas, prioritized new areas, and shifted resources away from others. Many of these changes are reflected in Acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew R. Galeotti’s May 12, 2025, memorandum to the DOJ’s Criminal Division (Galeotti Memo), which highlighted 10 high-impact areas of white-collar crime for enforcement:[1]
On October 2, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas stayed Commodity Futures Trading Commission, et al. v. TMTE Inc., et al., a case with potentially consequential implications for the commodities and derivatives markets. As we discussed in our prior update, this $185 million fraud suit was filed against two California precious metals dealers by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and 30 state regulators. In July, the Court denied summary judgment to both parties. The most significant holding from that order was the finding that gold and silver are not commodities under Section 1 of the CFTC’s enacting statute, the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).
My colleague Sydney Sznajder and I recently posted an article on the Husch Blackwell website outlining how federal prosecutors are turning their attention to cases that further the administration’s regulatory priorities. Part of this focus falls upon commercial real estate, where there is increasing scrutiny of foreign investment in real estate, as well as international