The curtain may have come down on today's House hearing, but don't expect the debate over sports prediction markets to disappear anytime soon.

Closing the session, Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD) outlined four key takeaways. First, he said the CFTC is "doing more with less," while acknowledging concerns about whether the agency has sufficient resources. Second, he noted broad agreement among lawmakers and witnesses on the importance of market integrity and customer protections.

Johnson also said the subcommittee must continue examining whether existing safeguards are adequate and stressed that Congress should not remain on the sidelines while courts and regulators shape the future of prediction markets. His final message was clear: today's hearing won't be the last.

Opponents of sports prediction markets continued to press their case during today's House hearing, with Rep. Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii) arguing that sports event contracts are fundamentally no different from traditional sports betting.

According to reports from the hearing, Tokuda said prediction markets offering sports event contracts amount to gambling and undermine the decisions of the 11 states that have yet to legalize sports betting.

"This is gambling. It's gambling," Tokuda said, reinforcing calls from several lawmakers and gaming industry representatives for sports event contracts to be regulated under state gambling laws rather than federal commodities rules.

A legal expert testifying at today's House hearing argued that the CFTC's self-certification process for prediction markets is far from automatic and that the agency retains the authority to intervene.

According to comments shared during the hearing, Carl Kennedy, a partner at Katten Muchin Rosenman, said self-certification "isn't a rubber stamp" and that the CFTC can review and challenge event contracts. However, he noted that there have been no examples of the CFTC challenging a prediction market under the Trump administration.

Kennedy also cautioned that some sports prediction markets are "definitely susceptible to manipulation," highlighting ongoing concerns about market integrity as lawmakers debate the future of federally regulated event contracts.

The NCAA has called on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to suspend college sports prediction markets until stronger safeguards are in place to protect student-athletes and the integrity of competition.

In written testimony submitted ahead of today's House hearing, the NCAA said the rapid growth of collegiate sports prediction markets poses a "significant threat" to both athlete welfare and competitive integrity. The organization urged the CFTC to halt college event contracts while developing a more robust regulatory framework.

Among the NCAA's recommendations are mandatory reporting of suspicious trading activity, geolocation tracking of market participants, enhanced cooperation with sports integrity investigations, and a 21+ age requirement for anyone trading college sports prediction contracts.

Advocacy group Fairplay pushed back on testimony from the American Gaming Association during today's House hearing, disputing claims that sports prediction markets are hurting state gaming revenues.

Responding to AGA representative Chris Cylke, Fairplay said assertions that prediction markets are costing states "a fortune in lost tax revenue" are not supported by the available data.

The group argued that figures instead show continued growth in state-regulated casinos and sports betting, pointing to recent industry revenue reports as evidence that traditional gaming has continued to expand despite the emergence of sports event contracts.

The American Gaming Association (AGA) used today's House hearing to sharpen its opposition to sports prediction markets, arguing that event contracts should be regulated as traditional sports betting.

In a statement shared during the hearing, the AGA's Senior Vice President of Government Relations, Chris Cylke, said:

"Let's be clear, so-called 'sports event contracts' are sports betting. A customer puts money on a sports outcome and gets paid if they are correct."

Cylke added that 41 state attorneys general agree the products constitute sports betting and therefore should be subject to state gaming laws, rather than being regulated solely by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

"Let’s be clear, so-called 'sports event contracts' are sports betting. A customer puts money on a sports outcome and gets paid if they are correct. Forty-one state attorneys general agree these products are sports betting and must be subject to state gaming laws." -AGA's Chris…

The House Agriculture Committee's examination of sports prediction markets is unlikely to end with today's hearing.

According to comments shared by journalist Nick Devor, Committee Chairman Rep. Glenn "GT" Thompson (R-PA) said today's session is "the first hearing, but not the last hearing" the committee will hold to examine prediction markets.

Meanwhile, Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD), who is chairing today's hearing, described himself as a "policy guy" and said he was "downright giddy" for the discussion, adding:

"You don't have to be a policy guy to understand how important the event contract and prediction market space is becoming."

Listening to Congress yap about prediction markets this morning. https://t.co/SL9TpeJHDn