The Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) has concluded that low numbers of suspicious betting reports from some of its licensees largely reflect tight risk controls rather than a failure to spot match-fixing, although it found gaps in how many of those firms document escalation and reporting.

The findings come from a thematic review of sports betting integrity monitoring, escalation and controls, which the regulator published on 27 October. The review targeted authorised persons that had filed few or no Suspicious Betting Reports since Malta’s reporting requirements were introduced. Those obligations applied to B2C licensees from 2021 and were extended to B2B licensees supplying critical gaming services in October that year.

Scope and method

According to the full report, the MGA examined a risk-based sample of authorised persons covering both B2B and B2C operating models. The regulator did not disclose how many licensees were included. The fieldwork ran from the second quarter to the fourth quarter of 2025 and drew on supervisory meetings, documents submitted by the firms and follow-up clarifications. All findings are presented in anonymised and aggregated form.

The exercise was flagged in the MGA’s February 2025 supervisory engagement plan and sits within its wider programme of reviewing the controls that support sports betting integrity.

Low volumes explained

The regulator found that many of the firms reviewed operated restrictive betting limits, conservative market offerings and removed events judged especially vulnerable to manipulation, such as certain youth competitions. These measures, it said, substantially reduced exposure to integrity risk and the likelihood of suspicious activity arising in the first place.

The report concluded that low reporting volumes “reflected the underlying risk management processes and reliance on external monitoring, rather than a simple absence of detection capability.”

That reliance on third parties was itself a weakness. Many licensees depended on external integrity monitoring bodies and only opened internal investigations when a partner raised an alert, meaning suspicious activity was less likely to be caught if no alert arrived. B2B-integrated operators often relied on feeds from their upstream providers, so the depth of their monitoring depended on that supplier. The MGA also found that some multi-jurisdiction operators did not realise that suspicious activity spotted mainly under foreign licences had to be reported to Malta where the same market involved MGA-licensed players.

Documentation gaps

All firms had some form of internal escalation process, typically starting in trading or risk teams before moving to compliance for a reporting decision. But the level of formality varied widely. Several policies made insufficient reference to the role of the Key Compliance Function, and some firms described their escalation flows verbally in meetings without capturing them in written procedures. Documents sometimes lacked detail on the duty to report within set timeframes regardless of whether financial harm had occurred, and did not always reflect staff training or market suspension practices.

The MGA said it had requested revisions so that written procedures match operational reality. It also advised firms to ensure internal teams have sufficient access to betting data even where services are provided by B2B partners, and to combine system alerts with human oversight.

On athlete betting, the regulator found licensees used external databases, manual checks and targeted account restrictions to stop athletes and sports staff betting on their own sport. None of the sampled firms had formal agreements or memoranda of understanding with sports governing bodies, which the MGA does not require but said could add value.

Industry asks for clearer definitions

Licensees told the regulator that the lack of clear guidance on what counts as “suspicious” betting leaves them to set their own standards, risking inconsistent reporting. The MGA acknowledged the feedback but said it prefers an open approach, arguing that rigid thresholds could discourage firms from submitting information that still warrants review. Firms also floated a centralised register of professional athletes. The MGA said this falls outside its remit but that sports associations may wish to explore it, while noting accuracy and data protection hurdles.

The review follows a separate MGA thematic review of the local football betting market published in October 2025. The regulator said it will track progress through ongoing supervision and take the findings into account when shaping future guidance, leaving the definition of suspicious activity as an open question for operators to watch.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the US Department of Justice have sued the State of Utah in federal court, seeking to stop it from using state gambling and public nuisance laws to shut down CFTC-regulated prediction markets such as Kalshi.

The complaint, filed on 26 October in the US District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, names the state and Attorney General Derek Brown, in his official capacity, as defendants. The CFTC announced the action on 27 October, describing it as part of ongoing efforts to preserve its jurisdiction over event contracts. The case is the agency’s tenth such action against a state.

Preemption under the Commodity Exchange Act

The federal government argues that the event contracts Utah is targeting are swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), and that the exchanges listing them are CFTC-registered designated contract markets. Because the CEA gives the CFTC “exclusive jurisdiction” over futures, options and swaps traded on federally regulated exchanges, the complaint says, Utah’s gambling statutes and its public nuisance law are expressly, field and conflict preempted as applied to those contracts.

The filing asks the court to declare the Utah laws invalid under the Supremacy Clause as applied to transactions on CFTC-regulated exchanges. It also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions barring the state from investigating CFTC-regulated entities, their affiliates and partners, or enforcing state law against trades on those markets. The complaint warns that Utah’s case against Kalshi “threatens to wipe out the operation of CFTC-regulated exchanges within the State.”

The complaint was signed by Brett Shumate, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division, alongside lawyers from the CFTC’s Office of General Counsel led by General Counsel Tyler Badgley.

“Congress entrusted the CFTC to be the federal regulator with sole responsibility to oversee these markets,” CFTC Chairman Michael Selig said in a statement, adding that Utah was seeking to shut down prediction markets across a wide range of categories.

Utah’s state court case

The federal suit responds directly to an enforcement action Brown filed on 20 October in the Third Judicial District Court in Salt Lake County. That case, which labels Kalshi’s markets a public nuisance, targets Kalshi Inc., KalshiEX LLC, Kalshi Klear Inc., Kalshi Klear LLC, Kalshi Trading LLC, and the trading firm Susquehanna International Group and an affiliate. Utah alleges that Kalshi began offering gambling bets to state residents by at least September 2024 and seeks an injunction, restitution, disgorgement and damages.

When he filed, Brown said Kalshi “runs an online casino in Utah and calls it a prediction market,” adding that this violated Utah law. His office had not publicly responded to the federal complaint as of 27 October, and did not immediately respond to requests for comment from reporters, according to The Block.

Utah has so far held its ground in court. Kalshi sued Utah officials in federal court in February, but in August US District Judge Robert Shelby granted the state summary judgment, finding that federal commodities law does not preempt Utah’s gambling laws. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in September declined to block enforcement while Kalshi appeals, according to the Utah attorney general’s office.

A widening federal campaign

The complaint lists preemption actions the federal government has already brought against Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island and Wisconsin, most of them since April. It notes that preliminary injunctions have been granted in the government’s favour in Arizona, Illinois and Minnesota. The CFTC said it had also filed briefs in four federal appeals courts and one state supreme court.

The Utah filing caps a busy fortnight for the agency on sports event contracts. Days earlier, the CFTC ordered Novig and ProphetX not to list self-certified sports contracts, and on 26 October it signed an integrity memorandum of understanding with the NBA, following similar agreements with Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League.

The federal court has yet to rule on any of the claims. With district courts split and appeals pending in several circuits, including the Tenth, the question of whether states or the CFTC control sports event contracts is increasingly expected to reach the US Supreme Court.

The NBA has become the latest major US league to formalise its relationship with prediction markets, signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and naming Kalshi and Polymarket as its Preferred Prediction Market Exchanges.

The league announced the package in New York on 26 October. Under the MOU, the NBA and the federal regulator will cooperate and share information on NBA-related prediction markets, with the stated aim of strengthening oversight and integrity protections for those contracts.

What the exchanges get, and what they give up

According to the league’s announcement, Kalshi and Polymarket each receive rights to use NBA intellectual property, marketing rights and promotional activations across US media channels. Both will also take official NBA data from Sportradar, the league’s Official Data Distribution Partner, to run and settle authorised NBA markets.

In return, the agreements carry integrity conditions. They limit which markets may be offered, bar league and team personnel from trading NBA event contracts, and require the exchanges to share information with the league about investigations and suspicious trading.

The NBA has also expanded its existing deal with DraftKings to cover prediction markets and nationwide promotion, making the operator an Authorised Prediction Market Operator. Operators in that tier face extra prediction-market integrity obligations and market restrictions that mirror the league’s most recent sports betting restrictions. The league said it expects to add further official sports betting partners and other industry participants in the coming weeks.

“Protecting the integrity of the game is our top priority,” said Scott Kaufman-Ross, the NBA’s head of media distribution and partnerships, adding that the league wants to “work constructively with regulators and operators.”

Kalshi’s head of sports partnerships, Adam Barrick, said the company believes “in markets that are fair, safe, and open”, while Ari Borod, president of sports business development at Polymarket, said the exchange looked forward to building “a safe, transparent prediction market ecosystem for everyone” with the league.

A split among the leagues

The deal lands while the legal status of sports event contracts remains contested across the US. Several states have moved against the exchanges, arguing that sports contracts are unlicensed betting, while the exchanges maintain they fall under exclusive federal oversight by the CFTC. The regulator itself has been tightening its grip on the sector, last week ordering Novig and ProphetX not to list self-certified sports contracts.

The NBA’s approach contrasts sharply with that of the NFL, which has asked the Supreme Court to let states regulate sports prediction markets. CoinDesk framed the NBA agreement as part of a wider move by professional leagues to work with the CFTC rather than against it, with the NFL the most prominent holdout.

For the exchanges, a league endorsement backed by official data and a federal information-sharing pact strengthens their argument that sports contracts can be policed as tightly as regulated sportsbooks. For state regulators and tribal gaming interests pursuing enforcement, it adds a powerful commercial partner to the other side of the dispute.

The practical test will come over the NBA season, as the league and its partners show how the market restrictions and suspicious-trading reporting work in practice, and whether other leagues follow the NBA or the NFL.