At the Indian Gaming Association’s annual convention this week in San Diego, tribal leaders and gaming officials focused on a fast-growing part of online finance: prediction markets. The Indian Gaming Association’s chairman, David Bean, and other speakers said the platforms could erode the tightly regulated gambling space tribes have carved out in the U.S., while also raising concerns about whether the products are being marketed in a way that avoids the rules that govern tribal casinos.
Bean, speaking at a news conference Wednesday, argued that prediction markets are essentially gambling. “This is no innovation,” he said. “This is unlawful gambling dressed up as finance.” The association called on Congress to act and announced a defense fund aimed at supporting legal actions against the platforms.
The dispute also touches the scale of tribal gaming. The Indian Gaming Association said tribal gambling enterprises generate more than $40 billion a year, revenue it said helps fund healthcare, housing, education and other services in Native American communities. On prediction market apps, the trade described by the association includes large-dollar exchanges tied to major events, including the Super Bowl.
Prediction markets, speakers said, allow users to wager on the outcome of a wide range of events, from sports tournaments to geopolitical developments. In the view of critics, the concern is not only the wagering itself but the speed and reach of the platforms’ expansion—from niche uses to mainstream attention—since the 2024 election cycle, including controversy surrounding the products.
Supporters of the prediction-market platforms have disputed that characterization. Kalshi, Polymarket and Robinhood said their users are trading in futures-like “event contracts,” and they disagree with assertions that the platforms are circumventing regulation. They have also argued the markets should be regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, rather than treated the same way as casinos or sportsbooks.
A key part of the tribal argument is the legal architecture that governs tribal gaming. In the 1970s, tribes used gambling revenue streams during the “tribal self-determination era” to support community rebuilding, as Patrice Kunesh, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, described. Kunesh said tribes were asserting sovereignty and that states sought a larger role in regulation, a dynamic that followed a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision that blocked California’s attempt to shut down certain card rooms on reservations.
That pressure contributed to federal legislation: the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which Kunesh characterized as a compromise for tribes. The law expanded the kinds of gaming tribes could offer and set requirements that include negotiating gambling compacts with states, while also imposing strict standards. Tribal leaders argue prediction markets sit outside that system even as they compete for consumers’ wagering dollars.
Former National Indian Gaming Commission Chairman Jonodev Chaudhuri said prediction markets pose a distinct risk because they have surged into the online market “seemingly overnight with minimal oversight,” describing the mood at this year’s convention as one of worry. He said, “There’s an intensity in the discussions that is more pointed than I’ve seen perhaps ever in these rooms.” The Indian Gaming Association said it is pursuing studies on the platforms’ financial impact on tribes.
Tribal governments are also taking the dispute to court. Four tribal nations have sued Kalshi and Robinhood in federal court, accusing the companies of violating federal law and state-tribal compacts. In court filings, the platforms have said they operate financial markets rather than casinos or sportsbooks and are not doing business on tribal lands.
Among the challengers is the Ho-Chunk Nation, a federally recognized tribe with exclusive gambling rights under a compact with the state of Wisconsin. Ho-Chunk President Jon Greendeer described the case as an unequal fight, saying, “We’re taking on somebody who makes more money on one event than we do in an entire year,” and that the tribe’s social safety net is at stake.
Even as the association presses Congress to act, lawmakers’ willingness is uncertain. Bean said the organization is seeing “hesitancy from lawmakers who don’t want to upset the big boss,” pointing to the fact that the Trump administration has backed the prediction markets industry. In parallel, the Indian Gaming Association has filed briefs in support of the lawsuits it described as growing, and said it is marshaling resources for its own potential legal fight.
Kunesh said tribes’ financial exposure to regulation is also a central part of the story, arguing that compliance costs under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act take a significant bite out of tribal revenue. She also said a common misconception is that tribes are “making money hand over fist,” calling that a “terrible misunderstanding.”