Four Native American tribes have launched their own prediction market apps built on Kalshi’s federally regulated exchange, a move that has opened a visible split in Indian country as tribal gaming groups in Oklahoma step up their opposition to the products.

The apps, announced on 7 October, are PokkeTrades from the Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town in Wetumka, Oklahoma; Sovereign Edge from the Kletsel Economic Development Authority, the economic arm of California’s Kletsel Dehe Wintun Nation; Greenville from the Greenville Rancheria in California; and AIR Markets from the Alturas Indian Rancheria in northern California.

How the model works

According to Kalshi’s announcement, each tribe owns its app and controls the brand, marketing and customer relationship. Kalshi runs the exchange underneath, handling order matching, clearing, custody of funds and market surveillance, and all four apps draw on its shared national pool of liquidity.

The first tribal prediction app, the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana’s SaltTrade Derivatives, went live in September.

Supporters frame the launches as a route into the gaming economy for small or landlocked tribes. The Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town has fewer than 800 members and sits within the Muscogee Nation’s reservation boundaries, which prevents it from operating its own casino. “Sovereignty cannot mean protecting opportunity for the haves while closing the door on the have-nots,” said Michael Stopp, the tribe’s vice president of economic development.

That argument draws on the uneven distribution of tribal gaming revenue. National Indian Gaming Commission data show tribal gaming generated more than $46bn in 2025, but around 9% of operations account for 56% of that revenue.

Oklahoma’s compact tribes push back

The launches have landed badly with Oklahoma’s established gaming tribes. The Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association (OIGA), which represents 25 member tribes, has argued that sports prediction markets amount to illegal Class III gaming on tribal lands and undermine the exclusivity tribes pay for under their state compacts. Those exclusivity fees generated more than $221m for the state in the 2025 budget year, according to local public radio reporting.

Responding to the Kalshi partnership, OIGA said none of the tribes involved is a member, and that it remains committed to working with the Oklahoma legislature on new forms of Class III gaming that do not violate the compacts. Oklahoma has no legal sports betting: the most recent bill failed 27-21 in the state Senate in April.

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond has already sided against the platforms, joining other state attorneys general in a filing with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) that described Kalshi’s sports contracts as gambling.

Litigation and federal rules

Elsewhere, tribes are fighting Kalshi in court. Blue Lake Rancheria in California, the Ho-Chunk Nation in Wisconsin and the Mescalero Apache Tribe in New Mexico are among those alleging that its sports event contracts breach the gaming rights guaranteed by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. Kalshi maintains that it operates a federally regulated financial exchange and that federal law pre-empts state gaming restrictions.

The tribal deals give Kalshi a new line of argument in that fight: that tribes can be owners of prediction markets rather than only their opponents. Whether that holds will depend on the courts, the US Supreme Court petitions now pending over state authority, and the CFTC’s proposed rulemaking on event contracts. For Oklahoma, the immediate effect is a sharper divide between compact tribes defending exclusivity and smaller nations looking for a way in.

The Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) has stepped up its campaign against a further rise in UK gambling taxes, warning that doubling Machine Games Duty (MGD) to 40% at the forthcoming Budget could cost up to 16,000 jobs.

In a statement published on 13 October, the trade body cited EY modelling showing that the increase would put almost 1,500 betting shops and as many as 34 casinos at risk, while leaving the Treasury up to £124m worse off as venues close and the tax base shrinks.

Betting shops and young workers

The BGC said betting shops support more than 36,000 jobs, with over 80% of them outside London. It said the workforce skews young: 19% of betting shop employees are under 25, against 11% across the wider economy, and 51% are under 35, compared with 35% nationally. Half of the workforce is female.

Of the jobs it says are at risk, 27% are in the North of England, rising to nearly 40% when Scotland is included.

“Britain’s betting shops support more than 36,000 jobs, and more than eight in ten of them are outside London,” said BGC chief executive Grainne Hurst. “Our message to the Chancellor is simple: rule out any increase in Machine Games Duty.”

Casinos warn of closures

The intervention followed a separate BGC statement on 12 October focused on land-based casinos. It said a 40% MGD rate would put up to 3,800 casino jobs at risk and could lead some operators to consider closing as much as a third of their estates. Half of the threatened closures would be in the North of England and Scotland.

The BGC said casinos directly employ more than 10,000 people, receive 14 million visits a year and contribute £515m in taxes. More than £50m of planned investment could be cancelled or scaled back if taxes rise, it added. Hurst described the proposal as “an existential threat to casinos across Britain”.

Where the proposal came from

The idea of doubling the duty on Category B gaming machines was put forward by the Social Market Foundation, which estimated it could raise between £275m and £458m a year in additional revenue. The industry disputes that estimate, arguing that closures would erode the yield.

The warnings land on a sector still absorbing the last round of increases. Remote Gaming Duty rose to 40% in April 2026, and the remote betting rate of General Betting Duty is due to rise in April 2027. Betfred founder Fred Done has said doubling MGD would force the closure of hundreds of the bookmaker’s shops, and a report by consultancy Regulus has argued the hike would put £92m of horseracing income at risk because of the sport’s reliance on betting shop turnover.

The BGC said the regulated industry as a whole supports 109,000 jobs, contributes £6.8bn to the UK economy and pays more than £4bn a year in tax.

What happens next

The Treasury has not confirmed whether MGD is under review, and the BGC’s figures come from modelling the industry commissioned. With the Budget approaching, the sector’s lobbying is now focused squarely on retail, after a year in which online operators bore the brunt of the tax changes. Whether the Chancellor treats machines as the next source of revenue will shape the size of the British high street estate for years to come.

Stake’s attempt to keep operating in Brazil until the end of the month has collapsed after the president of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region (TRF-3) suspended the injunction that had shielded the operator from the government’s betting ban.

Judge Luis Antonio Johonsom Di Salvo granted a request from the federal government, represented by the Attorney General’s Office (AGU), on 9 October, a day after the lower-court order was issued. Stake said in a notice on its Brazilian site that its website and app have been unavailable again since 10 October.

What the injunction had allowed

On 8 October, Judge Cristiane Farias Rodrigues dos Santos of São Paulo’s 9th Federal Civil Court partly granted Stake’s writ of mandamus. She rejected the operator’s main request to suspend Provisional Measure (MP) 1.394/2026 entirely and keep trading until 31 December 2029, when its federal authorisation was due to expire. She did, however, allow it to keep operating until 25 October, the date on which the MP brings existing betting authorisations to an end.

Until then, authorities were barred from treating the licence as expired, blocking or redirecting the stake.bet.br domain, or sanctioning the company solely for operating within the terms of the order. The relief came with 12 conditions, including a ban on new marketing campaigns and bonuses, guaranteed withdrawal of player balances, and responsible gambling controls.

Why the appeals court stepped in

The AGU argued that the order carved out an exception to national policy for a single operator, creating regulatory asymmetry and an undue advantage, and that it risked encouraging copycat claims from other licensees. Di Salvo agreed. According to Brazilian legal outlets that reviewed the ruling, he found “serious harm to public order”, said the MP was intended to apply uniformly across the sector, and pointed to the risk of a multiplier effect.

He also noted that the Supreme Federal Court (STF) is already reviewing the MP in three constitutional challenges, ADIs 8024, 8027 and 8028, under Justice Luiz Fux, and said the judiciary should avoid becoming the agent of instability while that review is pending.

The suspension holds until the underlying case is finally decided or the court’s presidency rules otherwise. With the order lifted, the MP’s effects apply to Stake again, including the redirection of its domain requested by the Ministry of Justice and Public Security. Stake can appeal to the TRF-3’s full panel. Meanwhile the writ of mandamus continues in the lower court, where the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets (SPA/MF), telecoms regulator Anatel and the Central Bank must provide information before the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office gives its opinion.

A sector in limbo

Stake’s licence had been granted under the regime that launched in January 2025, when Brazil opened its regulated fixed-odds market to authorised operators. President Lula’s government moved to unwind that framework through the MP, giving licensees 30 days to wind down.

The consequences are already being counted. Trade press reports put job losses linked to the ban at more than 3,500, while some licensees, including Kaizen Gaming, have publicly said they remain committed to the market despite the uncertainty.

The decisive ruling is expected to come from the STF. Reports in Brazil suggest Justice Fux may wait until after the presidential election run-off before deciding on requests for preliminary relief against the MP. Until then, the TRF-3’s decision signals that operators seeking individual carve-outs from the ban are unlikely to find a sympathetic hearing in the federal appeals courts.