Blumenthal puts DraftKings and FanDuel on notice as probe into prediction markets intensifies

Senator Richard Blumenthal announced on 7 October 2026 that he will send formal questions to DraftKings and FanDuel about their operations related to prediction markets and high‑value customer programs. His action builds on a prior inquiry into FanDuel’s VIP program and broadens the focus to commercial prediction markets and platforms that enable event contracts.

Blumenthal warns DraftKings and FanDuel over VIP programs and prediction markets

Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, said he will demand details about FanDuel’s VIP program and apply the same scrutiny to DraftKings and operators of prediction markets. The step moves the congressional inquiry from general oversight hearings to the explicit identification of specific operators. For major sports‑betting firms and for event‑contract platforms, this means formal questions, document requests and the possibility of public testimony.

Regulatory context: state lawsuits and federal probes into prediction markets

Kalshi, Polymarket, Robinhood and Crypto.com already face state lawsuits and federal probes related to their prediction‑market businesses and associated financial products. State attorneys general and legislative departments have filed actions against some of these platforms, while federal agencies have opened separate investigations.

The House of Representatives, via the House Oversight Committee, has already issued subpoenas to obtain trading records from Hyperliquid and Crypto.com. At the same time, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has investigated bets placed by a former congressman on the Kalshi platform. Those actions create a history of intervention that now brings FanDuel and DraftKings into the same line of questioning.

Why the FanDuel case is the entry point

The review of FanDuel’s VIP program gives Blumenthal a door to raise broader questions about the risks posed by high‑value customers and how those risks overlap with prediction markets. The strategy is explicit: use potential harms tied to VIP programs to justify questions about oversight, transparency and surveillance on platforms that allow bets or event contracts.

That approach forces traditional sports‑betting operators to prepare answers about practices that until now were considered private between platforms and big bettors.

Practical consequences for DraftKings, FanDuel and other operators

The named companies should expect document requests, customer activity records and the possibility of public appearances they did not foresee in this legislative cycle. Any incomplete surveillance records or inconsistencies in monitoring data could turn a platform into an example that drives regulatory or legislative changes.

Early adverse findings would push regulators and Congress to promote a unified surveillance regime instead of the current patchwork of state rules and varied platform protocols. Consolidated surveillance would mean uniform standards for monitoring, data retention and reporting of high‑risk activity.

What’s at stake for the industry and compliance officers

Operators must review their high‑value customer monitoring systems, the traceability of transactions in prediction markets and the availability of records to produce in response to subpoenas. Concrete areas to audit include:

• full retention of trading records and communications with VIP customers;

• procedures to detect unusual patterns in prediction markets;

• the ability to generate reports for the House Oversight Committee, the CFTC or state prosecutors.

For technology and compliance vendors, this means greater demand for tools to consolidate evidence and speed regulatory responses. For general counsel and heads of compliance, the immediate task is to verify there are no data gaps that could make the platform a target for corrective action or public‑policy measures.

What’s next on the agenda for Congress and regulators

Bringing DraftKings and FanDuel into the scope of inquiry marks an escalation: the scrutiny reaches beyond native prediction‑market platforms to incumbents in sports betting. House Oversight and the CFTC have already shown interest in records and the conduct of key actors; the new development is that the Senate now asks mainstream operators to be accountable.

In this context, the sector should watch regulatory and legislative developments and the trend toward common surveillance standards. Public discussion about potential harm from VIP programs and the nature of prediction markets will remain the framework in which new rules are drafted.

Tactical recommendations for operators

Operators that run both sports betting and prediction markets should prioritise compliance history reviews and document preparation. Specifically:

1. Identify and collate historical records for VIP customers and event contracts.

2. Audit surveillance systems to ensure they can produce reports under subpoena.

3. Prepare spokespeople and response packs for public hearings and formal requests.

This is the moment to consolidate data and demonstrate operational control before an inquiry changes industry practice.

The investigation into VIP programs and the review of prediction markets will affect both operators and compliance providers. Companies should follow reported subpoenas and hearings in industry sources and in [our coverage](/news). For product and compliance decisions, keep attention on public‑policy discussions covered in the [B2B](/b2b) section.