By Ulysses Cornelius. Educational market analysis, not financial advice. Sources and regulatory context were checked as of 8:10 a.m. ET on September 11, 2026.

The ESMA prediction markets report says the largest platforms do not hold the EU authorization generally required to market and sell event contracts. It names Polymarket and Kalshi. The regulator questions their partial country restrictions because VPN access can weaken geographic blocks. The report is a risk assessment, not an immediate EU-wide shutdown order.

Feature image: the Ibox office building in Paris, home to the European Securities and Markets Authority. Photograph by Gecina. CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

TL;DR

  • ESMA's September 10 risk monitor says event contracts can fall under MiFID II, MiCA, or national gambling law, depending on how each contract is built.
  • The regulator says EU authorization is generally required and that the largest prediction-market platforms currently do not hold it.
  • ESMA names Polymarket and Kalshi, then questions why their restricted-country lists cover only some EU members and whether VPN bans work in practice.
  • No platform closure, account restriction, contract delisting, or odds move tied to the report was verified by 8:10 a.m. ET Friday.

What happened in the ESMA prediction markets report

The European Securities and Markets Authority's Risk Monitor No. 2 devotes three pages to prediction markets. ESMA defines event contracts as contracts whose payout depends on whether a stated future event occurs.

The report separates the possible legal routes. A contract tied to an underlying listed in MiFID II can qualify as a financial instrument. A distributed-ledger contract outside that definition may fall under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, known as MiCA. Other contracts can be treated as gambling products under national law.

ESMA says event contracts that are financial instruments would generally be derivatives. National product-intervention measures for binary options can then prohibit their marketing, distribution, or sale to retail investors. That point matters because a platform's U.S. status does not supply an EU license. Kalshi is a CFTC-regulated designated contract market in the United States, while Polymarket uses on-chain trading and settlement with centralized market administration.

CoinDesk and The Block separately reported the authorization warning. Neither report described a new binding order that closed both services across the bloc.

Why prediction-market access risk changed

This is an access-risk event, not a verified market-price event. ESMA says Polymarket and Kalshi block order placement in some EU countries, but it asks why every member state is not on those lists. The regulator also says a VPN can let a user reach prediction-market services even when the platform prohibits that workaround. It calls the practical effectiveness of the restrictions uncertain.

The distinction is important. A risk-monitor report can guide national regulators and shape later supervision, but it is not the same as a court judgment or a platform notice. Users should not assume that a visible quote means they are eligible to trade. They also should not assume the report has already removed a contract.

The timing differs from Thursday's Connecticut cease-and-desist sweep. Connecticut announced orders and subpoenas against named firms under state law. ESMA published a bloc-level risk analysis that maps several possible EU legal regimes.

Implications for prediction-market and crypto users

Prediction-market users in Europe face a contract-by-contract eligibility problem. Their country can change the legal treatment. The contract's underlying event and the platform entity also matter. A geoblock is only one signal. The platform's terms and any national regulator notice carry more weight.

Crypto users should pay special attention to the legal entity and settlement route. An on-chain contract is not automatically governed only by MiCA. ESMA says a contract that already qualifies as a financial instrument remains within securities rules even if distributed-ledger technology is involved.

Platform and data partners face a separate issue. The report notes growing distribution of prediction-market information through traditional financial services. A data feed can remain available even where order placement is restricted, so readers must separate price visibility from trading permission.

A five-checkpoint EU access review

Use this checklist before acting on a regulatory headline or a displayed contract price:

  1. Identify the offering entity and the user's country.
  2. Read the exact contract underlying and resolution wording.
  3. Check the platform's current restricted-jurisdiction list without using a VPN.
  4. Look for a dated notice from the relevant national regulator or court.
  5. Record whether the new information changes access, order entry, or settlement. If none changed, classify the event as legal risk rather than an operating change.

In replay practice, pause at the first ESMA headline and write the operational evidence you expect next. Reveal later reports only after you have separated the regulator's analysis from an enforceable action. Give one point for the correct jurisdiction and another for the correct legal document. Add a final point for waiting for a confirmed product effect.

Potential positives vs negatives

The positive case is clearer EU treatment. A common framework could tell platforms which authorization applies and give users firmer disclosure standards. ESMA also recognizes that prediction prices can support forecasting and analysis when markets have enough participation.

The negative case is fragmented access. Different national measures can produce uneven country lists and rapid eligibility changes. ESMA also warns about weak identity controls on some distributed-ledger platforms, along with insider trading and manipulated resolution data. Those concerns can bring tighter supervision before a dedicated EU framework exists.

What could happen from here

Base case: The report raises supervisory pressure, while platform access remains country-specific. National regulator notices or revised restricted-country lists would confirm this path. No follow-up action over the next several weeks would weaken the immediate operating-risk case.

Upside case for access clarity: A platform publishes an EU authorization plan and clearer entity-level terms. Confirmation requires an official filing or regulator statement. A new block or enforcement action would invalidate this path.

Downside case for access: One or more EU authorities order fresh restrictions against unlicensed event-contract services. Confirm this path through a dated legal notice and a matching platform change. Continued service without an official action would leave it unconfirmed.

What traders should watch next

  • ESMA statements that turn the risk analysis into supervisory guidance.
  • National regulator actions in countries where either platform still permits order placement.
  • Changes to Polymarket and Kalshi restricted-jurisdiction documents.
  • Any platform notice that separates data access from trading access.

For trading mechanics outside the legal question, review ChartDojo's Kalshi versus Polymarket comparison and its contract-first prediction-market workflow.

FAQ

Did ESMA ban Polymarket and Kalshi across the EU?

No. ESMA published a risk-monitor report saying major platforms lack the authorization generally required to market and sell event contracts in the EU. The report is not an EU-wide shutdown order.

Why can EU event contracts face different rules?

The legal route depends on the contract. It may be a MiFID II financial instrument, a MiCA-covered crypto-asset product, or a gambling product under national law.

Does a visible price mean an EU user can trade?

No. Market data can be visible when order placement is restricted. Check the platform entity and its jurisdiction terms. Then read any regulator notice before treating a displayed quote as executable.

Sources

Build real skills, not bad habits. Use ChartDojo to practice separating regulatory headlines from confirmed operating changes with AI-powered feedback. Start a free trial before the next access-risk event.