Seminole Tribe Sues DraftKings as 145 Tribal Governments Urge SCOTUS to Act — But Tribes Are Split
The Seminole Tribe of Florida sued DraftKings on October 8 in Broward County court, alleging DraftKings' Pick6 and sports event contracts operate as unlicensed sportsbooks that violate the Tribe's exclusive sports betting rights under its 2021 Florida gaming compact. The same week, roughly 130 federally recognised tribes and 15 tribal organisations filed a Supreme Court amicus brief urging the Court to hear the Kalshi case, citing IGRA and unauthorised gaming on Indian lands. But the tribal community is split: several California tribes and an Oklahoma tribe have instead partnered with Kalshi.
The Seminole Tribe of Florida filed a 72-page lawsuit against DraftKings on October 8, 2026 in Broward County Circuit Court, naming DraftKings, CEO Jason Robins, and GUS III LLC (DraftKings Predictions). The Tribe alleges that DraftKings' Pick6 product and sports event contracts function as unlicensed sportsbooks that replicate traditional sports wagering while circumventing the Tribe's 2021 Florida gaming compact, which grants the Seminoles exclusive rights to offer regulated sports betting in the state. The Tribe seeks an injunction, disgorgement of profits, and legal costs. DraftKings said it respects the Tribe's sovereignty but is confident in its position, arguing its products comply with federal commodity and fantasy sports rules and that it is regulated solely at the federal level by the CFTC. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who negotiated the 2021 compact, signalled support for the Tribe.
For UK readers, the tribal gaming compact is a form of exclusive licence: in exchange for revenue-sharing with the state, the Seminole Tribe holds the sole right to offer regulated sports betting in Florida, analogous to an exclusive concession. The Tribe's claim is that DraftKings' prediction products are sports betting in substance and therefore trespass on that exclusive right. The choice of defendant is notable: the Tribe sued DraftKings but not Kalshi, Polymarket, Underdog, PrizePicks, or Crypto.com, all of which offer comparable contracts. Gaming attorney Daniel Wallach suggested the Tribe may have avoided the platform with the strongest White House backing, targeting DraftKings — a publicly traded sportsbook whose prediction product is a newer, smaller line — as a lower-risk way to test the theory. Wallach expected DraftKings to try to remove the case to federal court, as Kalshi has done when sued in state court.
The Seminole suit coincided with a major tribal filing at the Supreme Court. A coalition of roughly 130 federally recognised tribes and 15 tribal organisations filed an amicus brief on October 8 supporting New Jersey's petition in Flaherty v. KalshiEX. The argument has two parts: that Kalshi's sports event contracts are sports bets regardless of label, and that Congress did not, by adding the single word 'swaps' to the Commodity Exchange Act, intend to displace the entire framework of gaming law; and that Kalshi has offered contracts on Indian lands without tribal authorisation, raising distinct questions under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act — the federal statute, rooted in the 1987 Cabazon decision, governing gaming on tribal lands. The tribes frame the platforms as an existential threat to the exclusive gaming rights that fund tribal governments.
The tribal community is not unified. While the large coalition opposes the platforms at the Supreme Court, several tribes have moved the opposite way commercially: three California tribes announced partnerships with Kalshi to build their own apps and online casinos on the platform, and a small Oklahoma tribe has struck a deal as well — drawing criticism from the 140-plus tribes in the opposing coalition. The split mirrors the divide among sports leagues, where the NFL opposes the platforms in court while MLB, the NHL, and MLS have signed commercial deals. The division reflects a strategic choice: fight the platforms to defend an existing exclusive franchise, or partner with them to capture a share of a market that may be impossible to stop. For tribes the stakes are especially high, because gaming exclusivity is tied to sovereignty and to the funding of tribal government services. The tribes partnering with Kalshi bet that participation beats resistance; the 145 opposing tribes bet that the exclusivity they fought for is worth defending. Flaherty v. KalshiEX will determine which bet pays off.
Operators mentioned in this article
Recent updates
Google Adds Prediction Market Ad Policy — CFTC License Required, Ads Blocked in Five States
Google published a dedicated prediction markets section in its advertising policy on October 15, requiring domestic operators to hold a CFTC Designated Contract Market licence to run ads — favouring Kalshi and Polymarket US over unlicensed rivals. Google also bars prediction market ads targeting five states where enforcement is most active: Connecticut, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Nevada. The policy makes Google's ad platform mirror the state enforcement map, using commercial access as a de facto regulatory layer.
Kalshi Partners With Signify to Police Athlete Harassment, Codifies Anti-Abuse Rule
Kalshi announced a partnership with Signify Group on October 15 to monitor social media for abuse and threats directed at athletes, coaches, and sports personnel across the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and ATP Tour. Kalshi notified the CFTC of a new rule, dated October 13, codifying athlete harassment as an 'impermissible activity', with sanctions up to financial penalties and permanent account closure. The move follows a September appeal by five major leagues and their players' unions for lifetime bans on abusive bettors.
CFTC Moves to Classify Event Contracts as Swaps — Attempting to Settle the Core SCOTUS Question by Rule
The CFTC, led by Chairman Michael Selig, moved on October 9 to explicitly classify event contracts as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act, placing prediction market contracts under federal swap regulation. The scope covers sports, political, cultural, and weather contracts, while a separate provision excludes casino-style gambling and sportsbook wagers. Selig said the aim is to remove 'any ambiguity.' The action targets the exact question dividing the federal circuits and now before the Supreme Court — whether event contracts are 'swaps.'