Appeals court sides with Nevada in prediction market regulation fight

Questions about this coverage

How did the left and right cover Appeals court sides with Nevada in prediction market regulation fight?

Of the 96 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 19% are rated left, 79% are rated centre, 2% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it, which was 121. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.

Is Appeals court sides with Nevada in prediction market regulation fight left or right?

The story itself is neither. What can be counted is who has covered it, and 79% of the 96 rated outlets on it are rated centre — so far this is a story carried mostly by the centre. Coverage of this one has settled, so that is unlikely to move much now.

Is the coverage of Appeals court sides with Nevada in prediction market regulation fight biased?

Appeals court sides with Nevada in prediction market regulation fight is one event reported by 121 outlets, and this page does not rate the story as biased or unbiased. What it publishes is the spread: which outlets ran it, where named rating organisations place each of them on the spectrum, and what each side chose to lead with. A leaning rating describes an outlet's record over time, not this article, and the two should not be run together.

Which side is not reporting Appeals court sides with Nevada in prediction market regulation fight?

When we first saw this story, outlets rated right had barely covered it. Coverage accretes for hours after an event, so that is where to look rather than a verdict — the split above is the current count, and it is the one to read.

Which outlets covered Appeals court sides with Nevada in prediction market regulation fight?

121 that we know of, every one of them listed further up this page with a link to its own report and to what we hold on the publisher. Nothing here is a summary of somebody else's summary: the outlets are named so the original reporting can be read.

What did the appeals court rule regarding Kalshi and Nevada?

A federal appeals court ruled that Nevada can regulate Kalshi's prediction markets. The court determined that Kalshi's contracts based on sporting events are sports bets and not federally regulated financial swaps, rejecting Kalshi's argument that federal law preempts state gambling regulations.

Why is this ruling significant for states?

The ruling is significant because it supports states' authority to regulate prediction markets under their own gambling laws. It is part of a larger legal conflict involving approximately 20 states that are litigating over who has regulatory oversight of these platforms.

Did all courts rule the same way on this issue?

No, the rulings have differed. While the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Nevada, a previous decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the CFTC has exclusive control over sports-related event contracts on Kalshi, reaching a different conclusion on federal preemption.