for early access to the latest igaming videos!
and get the latest igaming news first!
Two of the largest online prediction markets are moving to distance themselves from election denialism after paid promoters used their platforms to amplify unsupported claims about voting in California.
The shift emerged after scrutiny of social media posts from influencers working with prediction-market companies that allow users to wager on everything from election outcomes to sporting events and geopolitical developments. According to reporting by NPR technology correspondent Bobby Allyn, both Kalshi and Polymarket have updated or clarified their policies to prohibit compensated creators from undermining verified election results or spreading false claims about the electoral process.
Kalshi has informed paid partners that questioning the legitimacy of election outcomes, court decisions, or official election determinations violates its standards. Polymarket has taken a similar position, indicating that affiliates who deny election results or circulate misleading election claims can run afoul of its terms governing misinformation.
Sponsored Posts Draw Corporate Intervention
The policy changes follow a series of posts tied to the companies’ promotional programs.
Kalshi recently contacted influencers and requested the removal of content alleging misconduct in California’s vote-counting process. One video promoted by a paid creator suggested widespread cheating in the state despite the absence of evidence supporting those allegations.
Polymarket also intervened with creators connected to its affiliate network. The company reportedly sought the removal of paid-partnership labels from certain posts after creators linked market odds to claims that California elections were being manipulated. Another sponsored post suggested late-arriving mail ballots consistently favored Democrats for suspicious reasons, echoing a long-running narrative frequently debunked by election officials and voting experts.
Political Betting’s Growing Influence
The episode highlights a growing challenge for prediction-market operators as political betting becomes increasingly intertwined with online influence networks. These platforms have expanded rapidly in recent years, attracting users interested in forecasting elections and political developments. Their markets often become talking points on social media, where odds movements are sometimes presented as evidence supporting broader political arguments.
That growth has also drawn regulatory attention.
Regulatory and Legal Scrutiny Intensifies
Authorities have been examining whether participants are improperly using inside information or exploiting market structures. Federal investigators are reportedly looking into trading activity involving former congressman George Santos and a Kalshi market tied to attendance at the State of the Union address.
Earlier this year, Kalshi disclosed disciplinary action against three political candidates who traded on markets connected to their own electoral prospects. The company has also faced legal pressure from state officials. In March, Kris Mayes filed criminal charges alleging the platform unlawfully facilitated election-related betting.
Trump Ties Add Another Layer
Political connections surrounding the industry have added another layer of scrutiny. Donald Trump Jr. serves as an adviser to both Kalshi and Polymarket. At the same time, Truth Social is developing its own prediction-market product known as Truth Predict.
California Vote Counting Again Becomes a Flashpoint
The controversy arrives as California’s vote-counting process has again become a target of fraud allegations following the state’s recent primary election. Election administrators have long noted that California counts ballots more slowly than many states because of extensive verification procedures and opportunities for voters to correct ballot issues before final certification.
Against that backdrop, prediction-market companies now appear eager to draw a clearer line between political forecasting and election misinformation. Whether stricter rules for paid promoters will meaningfully curb the spread of false election narratives remains uncertain, but the companies are signaling that sponsorship arrangements will no longer provide cover for claims that contradict official election findings.
Source: theguardian.com
