CFTC Moves on Two Fronts: Event Contract Data Reporting Rule Heads to OIRA, Fintech Deregulation RFI Issued
De Silva Law Offices | June 20, 2026
On June 16, 2026, the CFTC made two significant moves in a single day. First, it advanced a proposed data reporting rule for event contracts to the White House for review, a procedural step that puts binding regulation of prediction markets within tangible reach. Second, it issued a formal Request for Information asking fintech firms to identify where current CFTC regulations create unnecessary barriers, responding to a May 2026 executive order directing all federal financial regulators to modernize their frameworks for technology-driven businesses.
The two actions are connected. The CFTC is working to cement its jurisdiction over prediction markets while at the same time acknowledging that its existing regulatory architecture was not built with fintech firms in mind. How it resolves that tension will have real consequences for platforms, intermediaries, and market participants across the industry.
The Data Reporting NPRM: What Happened and What It Means
On June 10, 2026, the CFTC submitted a proposed rule titled “Data Reporting Requirements for Certain Event Contracts” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, known as OIRA. OIRA is the White House office that reviews significant regulatory actions before they are published in the Federal Register and opened for public comment. Submission to OIRA means the proposal has cleared internal CFTC review, the Commission has voted to advance it, and the agency considers it ready for public scrutiny.
OIRA review typically runs between 45 and 90 days for significant rules, though that timeline can stretch depending on the administration’s priorities and the complexity of the issues raised. Once OIRA clears the rule, it will be published in the Federal Register and a formal public comment period will begin.
The June 10 data reporting proposal is part of a broader regulatory package. That same day, the CFTC publicly circulated a 250-page proposed rule addressing the types of events that can be traded on CFTC-regulated platforms and the conditions under which prediction market contracts might run contrary to the public interest. Readers of this blog will recognize that framework as the product of years of jurisdictional maneuvering, litigation, and rulemaking through which the CFTC has consistently asserted “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets and taken multiple states to court to defend that position.
What the Proposal Says About Permissible Contracts
The June 10 proposal draws some of the clearest lines the CFTC has yet offered on what it considers permissible under the Commodity Exchange Act. On sports event contracts, which have generated more litigation and political controversy than any other category, the agency stated that it “preliminarily believes” contracts based on the aggregate outcomes of professional and collegiate sports events are permissible. That is a meaningful signal for platforms currently offering such products or evaluating whether to do so.
The permissibility analysis does not extend to all sports-related contracts. Contracts that settle on more granular in-game events, specifically the status of a player’s injury or the outcome of an official’s call, appear likely to be prohibited. Contracts on amateur events, with Little League games cited as an example, face the same result. The rationale is straightforward: these contracts raise heightened concerns about manipulation susceptibility and the difficulty of establishing objective, verifiable settlement criteria.
The proposal also articulates broader standards for permissible contracts generally. A contract must demonstrate that it is not susceptible to manipulation, that it is subject to appropriate surveillance and trading prohibitions, and that it resolves based on verifiable settlement criteria. These standards track the existing statutory framework under CEA Section 5c(c)(5)(C), but their application to the specific fact patterns of prediction market products gives platforms a concrete framework for evaluating their own product lines.
The Sports League Data Fight
Running alongside the legal permissibility questions is a separate commercial dispute that the major sports leagues have inserted into the rulemaking process. The MLB, NBA, and PGA Tour each submitted comments urging the CFTC to require platforms to use official league data for contract settlement and to mandate that platforms share information, including suspicious activity reports, directly with the relevant leagues.
This is worth watching closely. If the CFTC were to mandate the use of league data for settlement purposes, it would effectively give the leagues a toll booth on every prediction market contract settled on their games. Platforms would face recurring data licensing costs; the leagues would gain both revenue and a surveillance function in markets they have largely opposed. The fact that the NBA, MLB, and PGA Tour engaged substantively in the rulemaking, rather than simply opposing it, suggests they have concluded that prediction markets are not going away and that their strategic interest lies in controlling the data infrastructure around them.
Whether the CFTC will adopt this approach is uncertain. The agency has historically been skeptical of arrangements that entrench incumbents or create private tollgates on public markets. But the leagues’ comments, combined with the political dynamics that often favor established sports institutions, make this a live issue that prediction market platforms should be tracking and preparing to respond to.
The Fintech RFI: A 21-Day Window to Shape the Regulatory Framework
The second June 16 action was a Request for Information directed at fintech firms, issued pursuant to Executive Order 14405, which President Trump signed on May 19, 2026. That order directed the heads of all federal financial regulators to review existing regulations, guidance, supervisory practices, and application processes within 90 days and identify where those frameworks impede fintech innovation. The CFTC’s RFI is how it is satisfying that obligation.
The RFI covers a wide range of CFTC-regulated activity. The agency is asking whether its existing registration and authorization categories, covering FCMs, IBs, CPOs, CTAs, DCMs, SEFs, DCOs, SDRs, and swap dealers, are fit for purpose given how technology-native firms actually operate. It also asks whether any existing category is so broad that it captures fintech activity that should not require registration at all.
For prediction market platforms, digital asset intermediaries, and other technology-driven businesses that have been navigating, or trying to navigate, the CFTC’s registration framework, the five questions posed in the RFI are directly relevant. They go to the heart of recurring practical problems: the mismatch between registration categories designed for traditional intermediaries and the operational realities of technology platforms; the friction that third-party technology providers encounter when trying to partner with registered entities; and the open question of whether decentralized finance protocols can be accommodated within the existing regulatory structure at all.
The comment window is 21 days from Federal Register publication. That is a short runway for any substantive response, and firms with concrete views should start organizing them now.
De Silva Law Offices is preparing a comment letter addressing all five RFI questions. We will publish our filed comment on this blog.
The Bigger Picture
These two June 16 actions are not coincidental. The CFTC is working simultaneously to lock in its jurisdictional claim over prediction markets through substantive rulemaking and to hear from fintech firms about where its existing regulatory architecture is getting in the way. That is a difficult position to hold in the same agency that has been suing states to assert control over prediction markets is now asking fintech firms where its rules are getting in the way.
Whether it can do both well will depend in part on how seriously it takes the feedback it receives, from prediction market platforms, fintech intermediaries, the legal community, and others with practical experience operating in the gaps between the CEA’s text and the realities of today’s markets.
As that feedback process is open, firms with views should use it.
De Silva Law Offices, LLC is a Chicago law firm concentrating in CFTC and NFA regulatory matters, derivatives, prediction markets, digital assets, fund formation, and enforcement defense. The firm is led by a former futures floor trader and registered representative and represents platforms, intermediaries, and registered entities before the Commission.
The firm can be reached at info@desilvalawoffices.com or 312-500-8424.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.