This is a complicated issue. It's very true that the traditional sportsbooks have been lobbying against the regulatory loophole that the prediction markets have been exploiting. However, the sportsbooks have also hedged their risk by investing in standing up their own CFTC "regulated" prediction markets. As it relates to the question of consumer harm, it's a tough one. Traditional sportsbooks have an incentive to set the odds in a way that is advantageous to the house (since they are on the other side of all the bets). They also have a history of encouraging more bets from dumb bettors and discouraging or driving away smart bettors. However, in order for prediction markets to grow, they need to attract more liquidity. In order to attract more liquidity, they need to bring in more institutional money. And in order to attract institutions, they need to attract dumb money for those institutional traders to bet against. So, the incentives for the prediction markets aren't great either. Additionally, when sports betting is regulated at a state level, there are more protections built in. Sportsbooks are required to offer responsible gaming resources and a portion of the tax money that states generate from sports betting is funneled back into gambling addiction treatment services. Plus, if a state like Utah doesn't want its citizens to be able to gamble on sports, they can outlaw it. Prediction markets don't have any of those protections or controls.