Prediction markets have moved quickly from niche crypto products to mainstream conversation. With the 2026 US midterm elections approaching, trading volume on election contracts is reported to be nearing one billion dollars. That growth has brought attention, and some of that attention has been uncomfortable. The most discussed story in the sector is not about the odds. It is about how one of the biggest players has been promoting itself.
The Wall Street Journal investigation
In June 2026, the Wall Street Journal published an investigation into Polymarket’s marketing. The paper reviewed 1,105 videos from ten creators posted between December 2025 and mid-May. According to its reporting, none of the roughly $1.9 million in bets shown in those videos were real. The clips were filmed on near-identical copies of the Polymarket website, including one at a misspelled address that looked similar to the real domain when the letter i was capitalised.
Across 118 of the videos, creators celebrated nearly $900,000 in fabricated winnings. Many of the creators were mostly college-age and were paid to film themselves placing bets and celebrating wins. The Journal also found that a marketing firm working with Polymarket had pushed the clips out through large numbers of accounts, which then reposted them in a way designed to look spontaneous. Polymarket said it was committed to accurate and transparent markets and would audit its promotional content. The videos reportedly reached more than 140 million views before the investigation was published.
Undisclosed payments
The fake bet investigation was not the first problem. Politico reported on 5 June that Polymarket’s chief marketing officer, Matthew Modabber, had used a personal PayPal account to pay creators who promoted Polymarket odds on X without labelling the posts as adverts. Politico reported that he sent at least $350,000 to influencers in this way. Semafor later obtained internal training videos in which a marketing employee explained that the bets shown were fake money.
Internal materials also suggested that some creators were given a list of banned terms, including words such as “betting” and “gambling”. Whatever the intention behind that list, it is the kind of detail that regulators and journalists tend to focus on. It suggests the marketing team understood that the content could cross a line.
The latest development
This week, iGB reported that Polymarket had fired its chief marketing officer amid a promotional practices investigation. The company has not publicly detailed the findings of its own review, so the full picture is still developing. What is clear is that the marketing operation has become a central part of the story, rather than a footnote to Polymarket’s product growth.
Regulatory and political pressure
A bipartisan group of lawmakers has called for a federal probe into whether the company used deceptive marketing practices. Polymarket has said it is investigating, but has not provided further detail. Separately, the Wisconsin Election Commission has warned that ballot betting could breach the state’s voting law, which shows how quickly the debate has moved from finance into politics.
The company’s position is also complicated by its history. Polymarket was banned from operating in the United States after a 2022 CFTC fine, and it has been trying to re-enter the market. It now competes with Kalshi, which is regulated in the US. Marketing scrutiny at a time of re-entry is a difficult combination, because every promotional decision is now being read against the question of whether the company is respecting US rules.
Why prediction markets are harder to regulate
Prediction markets sit in an awkward space. They are often presented as financial or information tools rather than gambling products, yet users trade on sports outcomes, political events and entertainment. That ambiguity makes it harder for regulators to decide which rules apply, and it makes marketing more sensitive. A campaign that would be an ordinary sportsbook promotion can look very different when it is framed as market analysis.
The sector also has a particular influencer problem. Creators with large followings can make trading look easy, and the WSJ’s analysis suggested that most users lose money. When promotional content shows large wins that are not real, the risk to consumers is not theoretical. It shapes expectations about what a product will deliver.
What operators and affiliates should take from this
The lessons here are relevant well beyond prediction markets. The following points are our analysis rather than conclusions reached by the sources.
- Disclose every paid promotion clearly, including payments made through personal accounts. Undisclosed payments are the fastest route to a regulatory investigation.
- Never show winnings that did not happen. Replica sites and staged results are a serious reputational risk, whatever the commercial reason.
- Review creator briefs for language that suggests the team knew the content was risky. Internal guidance can become public evidence.
- Check the regulatory status of every market before promoting it, especially where a product has previously been restricted.
The test ahead
Prediction markets are growing, and the midterms will bring more attention to them. The companies that thrive will be those that treat marketing as a compliance question as well as a growth lever. The current investigations suggest that the cost of getting it wrong is no longer limited to a fine. It can include the loss of trust with regulators, lawmakers and the users the business depends on.
If you want to follow how the story develops, sign up for the BoiG newsletter, which covers the latest news, offers and announcements. The site’s crypto section is the place to look for further coverage of the sector.
