Spain Blocks Polymarket and Kalshi Over Gambling-Law Rules

Spain’s gambling regulator has taken a precautionary step, blocking Spanish users from accessing Kalshi and Polymarket as authorities review whether the prediction-market platforms comply with national gambling laws. The move comes after Spain’s Directorate General for the Regulation of Gambling (DGOJ) announced that the country’s Ministry of Social Rights, Consumption, and Agenda 2030 had opened disciplinary proceedings against the two firms, which allegedly operated without the required licensing.

According to a DGOJ notice issued on Tuesday, Polymarket and Kalshi are blocked from Spanish territories until the proceedings are resolved, a process expected to take three to four months. The agency stressed that, in Spain—and many other European jurisdictions—prediction markets are treated as games of chance when bets are placed on uncertain future outcomes, and therefore require a specific administrative license to operate domestically. This reflects broader regulatory caution around platforms that enable real-money bets on political, economic, or social events.

Key takeaways

• Spain has temporarily barred Spanish users from Kalshi and Polymarket as regulators pursue licensing-violation proceedings, with a projected resolution window of three to four months.
• In Spain, prediction markets are treated as games of chance, requiring a license to operate within the country’s borders.
• The move aligns with a broader, global pattern of regulatory scrutiny and access restrictions on prediction-market platforms, including precedents in Indonesia and several other jurisdictions.
• In the United States, regulatory attention has intensified: a New York Times report describes internal pushback within the CFTC, while lawmakers in Congress have opened an insider-trading probe into Kalshi and Polymarket.

Global patchwork of regulation tightens around prediction markets

The Spanish decision sits within a wider trend of authorities calibrating how prediction markets should fit within existing gambling or financial-device frameworks. Across Asia, Europe, and beyond, regulators have repeatedly warned that platforms enabling bets on future events may fall under gambling or financial-regulatory regimes, depending on the jurisdiction. The Indonesian authorities, for instance, moved to block Polymarket after the platform listed bets tied to the fate of President Prabowo Subianto. Other countries—including Australia, France, Poland, Singapore, Ukraine, and Switzerland—have also restricted access to Polymarket, with corporate and state-level actions shaping the ability of users to place bets on political and current events.

The regulatory environment is equally consequential for Kalshi and Polymarket, which have grown to become two of the largest prediction-market players by trading volume. Industry trackers put their combined weekly volume in the billions, underscoring the potential scale of user engagement and risk for operators under shifting regulatory mandates. The companies have publicly indicated openness to engaging with authorities, though spokespeople have declined to comment on the Spanish case beyond reiterating their commitment to regulatory dialogue.

US regulatory stance and the question of authority

The policy contours in the United States add another layer of complexity. A New York Times report detailed internal tensions at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), noting that certain officials who questioned the legitimacy or scope of prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket were reportedly reassigned. The CFTC maintains that it holds exclusive authority over such platforms and has pursued lawsuits against state authorities that have challenged that position, a stance that has drawn renewed attention amid ongoing debates about how to regulate rapidly evolving digital markets.

Beyond federal authorities, the political oversight apparatus in Washington has begun scrutinizing insider trading risks connected to prediction markets. Lawmakers on the House of Representatives’ Oversight and Government Reform Committee announced a probe into Kalshi and Polymarket over allegations of suspicious trades ahead of geopolitical or military events. Committee Chair James Comer cited reports suggesting that certain traders may have profited from information not yet made public, intensifying scrutiny of how these platforms handle information flows and potential conflicts of interest.

The dynamic underscores a tension at the center of the prediction-market debate: the potential for useful forecasting and risk-sharing tools to coexist with a regulatory framework that guards against gambling excesses, market manipulation, or unlicensed operations. As regulators in the U.S. and abroad weigh their options, market participants are watching closely for guidance on licensing pathways, consumer protections, and the permissible scope of event-based betting in regulated jurisdictions.

On the market side, observers note that Polymarket and Kalshi together account for a substantial share of weekly prediction-market activity. DeFi Rate’s aggregation of volume places their combined weekly trading activity in a meaningful, real-time context for traders and developers who build on or rely on indicators derived from these platforms. The ongoing regulatory actions may influence where liquidity migrates, how users evaluate risk, and what kinds of event-based contracts survive in regulated environments.

A Kalshi spokesperson told Cointelegraph that the platform remains focused on constructive engagement with regulators in every jurisdiction, while a Kalshi representative declined to comment further. The DGOJ’s action in Spain demonstrates that, even in a space with strong user demand and notable liquidity, compliance and licensing are likely to remain gating factors for access in multiple markets.

The regulatory mosaic matters for investors and builders in the space. For traders, it emphasizes the importance of understanding jurisdictional licensing, the potential for abrupt access changes, and the regulatory risk tied to event-driven contracts. For platform operators and developers, it highlights the need to align product design with local legal frameworks, implement robust compliance controls, and anticipate shifts in cross-border accessibility as policymakers refine their approaches to prediction markets and related financial instruments.

Looking ahead, several questions shape the near-term outlook: Will Spain’s licensing proceedings clarify the acceptable scope for domestic prediction markets, and how quickly regulatory processes will translate into concrete licensing decisions? How will the broader international patchwork evolve as more jurisdictions publish guidance or impose restrictions? And in the United States, will the reported internal debates within the CFTC give way to a more unified regulatory stance or further friction between federal authorities and state-level actions?

As the world of prediction markets continues to unfold against a shifting regulatory backdrop, observers should monitor licensing decisions in Spain, the outcomes of Indonesia’s and other countries’ actions, and the responses from U.S. lawmakers and the CFTC. These developments will likely shape how institutions, traders, and developers approach event-based markets in the months ahead.