Kalshi Counters FairPredicts Smear Campaign With New Advocacy Group Focused on Prediction Market Access
Kalshi has launched Americans for Fair Markets to push back against what it calls lies spread by the gambling industry. The move comes one day after the company sent a cease-and-desist letter to FairPredicts, the group behind the “Kalshi Lies” ad campaign. For operators and sportsbook executives watching the space, this escalation highlights how quickly prediction markets are forcing a structural contest over market access and regulatory framing.
The new group aims to defend regulated prediction markets against entrenched interests. It will also run campaigns for pro-innovation, pro-integrity, and pro-consumer protection legislation. After eighteen years across iGaming and sportsbook operations, I see this as the predictable next step when new entrants challenge existing margins.
Kalshi’s Cease-and-Desist and Immediate Response
FairPredicts has run an ad campaign with the tagline “Kalshi Lies”. The group has not revealed its source of funding. Kalshi’s cease-and-desist letter stated that FairPredicts is involved in the “publication, dissemination, and paid promotion of false, misleading, defamatory, and commercially disparaging statements”.
A day after sending the letter, Kalshi announced the launch of Americans for Fair Markets. The company cited “false information about prediction markets” spread by FairPredicts as a direct reason for the move.
John Bivona, Head of Government Relations at Kalshi, will serve as a board member for the new group. He said: “We’re not going to be outspent or out-organized by entrenched interests protecting their monopolies. Millions of Americans have shown they want regulated, open, and fair prediction markets — and we’re going to make sure they have access to them.”
This is not subtle positioning. Kalshi frames the opposition as casino and sportsbook interests focused on protecting their monopolies.
Political Ties and CFTC Scrutiny
Taylor Budowich will serve as the group’s strategic advisor. He served as deputy chief of staff to President Donald Trump last year. Budowich also worked with Donald Trump Jr. on the Save the U.S. Senate PAC. Trump Jr. is a strategic advisor for both Kalshi and rival platform Polymarket.
Trump Media has partnered with Crypto.com. The New York Times reported last week that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has moved to protect companies with ties to Trump by removing staff who wanted to investigate their activities.
White House spokesman Davis Ingle rejected any suggestion of wrongdoing. He told the Times: “President Trump only acts in the best interests of the American public. There are no conflicts of interest.”
The CFTC has aggressively defended prediction market platforms. Last week it filed a lawsuit against Minnesota authorities after the state passed a ban on a range of prediction markets. These connections add a layer of political risk that operators cannot ignore when modeling long-term exposure.
Lobbying Spend and Coalition Building
Kalshi spent over $1 million on lobbying efforts last year. Only two gambling groups, the American Gaming Association and the Gila River Indian Community, spent more.
The company said Americans for Fair Markets includes “a coalition of the industry’s largest stakeholders.” Kalshi launched the Coalition for Prediction Markets last year along with Crypto.com, Underdog, Coinbase, and Robinhood. That group focused on defending the legal status of prediction markets against casino-backed efforts to restrict the industry.
Both sides are investing heavily in political lobbying. This spend signals that the fight is not about marginal regulatory tweaks. It is about core market access and how prediction markets sit relative to traditional sportsbooks and casinos.
Risks in Escalating Public Battles
Prediction markets and casinos are locked in a heated battle over legal status. Kalshi believes casino lobby groups are funding FairPredicts. The risk here is that public smear campaigns and counter-campaigns could invite closer scrutiny from policymakers who prefer quieter resolution.
There is also the chance that heavy spending on both sides simply entrenches positions without delivering regulatory clarity. From the supplier side, this kind of regulatory ambiguity is what stalls commercial deals and slows platform integration timelines.
The counterargument is that open advocacy forces the conversation into the light. Yet the limitation remains: without clear federal guardrails, operators face uneven state-level enforcement and unpredictable compliance costs. The Minnesota lawsuit shows how quickly legal fights can escalate.
The Bottom Line is that Kalshi’s launch of Americans for Fair Markets accelerates the contest between prediction markets and traditional gaming interests. Executives should track lobbying outcomes and CFTC actions closely because the resulting rules will shape how these markets coexist or compete for the same liquidity pools. What matters next is whether this organized push produces workable legislation before World Cup 2026 turns up the volume on real-time pricing divergence.
