No Prediction Market Has Applied to Operate in Australia, ASIC Says

Zero prediction market operators have applied for an Australian financial services license, ASIC (the Australian Securities and Investments Commission) confirmed at a Senate estimates hearing on Thursday. Chair Sarah Court said an application under the financial services licensing regime would give ASIC a chance to test whether such platforms are suitable — but any bid would face a high bar, Bloomberg reported. Without a license, the platforms are more likely to answer to gambling rules than financial ones.

The disclosure lands as prediction markets surge elsewhere. Taker volume at Kalshi, Polymarket and Polymarket's US venue reached $172.4 billion in the third quarter, up from $98.5 billion in the second, according to FM Intelligence calculations. Listed brokers have followed the volume: IG Group agreed in July to buy US sports and prediction markets operator Underdog for an upfront enterprise value of about $1.1 billion.

What does this change for desks targeting Australia?

For now, nothing — because there is no licensed route. ASIC set out its position in August, when its Moneysmart consumer site stated that no prediction market is licensed as a financial market in Australia. The guidance said event contracts share characteristics with binary options, a product class ASIC banned for retail clients in 2021 and again extended the ban to October 2031 after a review found roughly 75% of retail clients lost money trading them.

"You are more likely to lose money than make money," the regulator told consumers in the guidance.

Australians can still reach offshore venues, ASIC noted, but they lose access to dispute resolution and client money safeguards. The enforcement track already has one precedent: the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) blocked Polymarket in August 2025, finding it offered a prohibited gambling service under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001.

Exchange rules or bookmaker rules?

Where brokers already offer event contracts, the applicable rulebook depends on the jurisdiction, and the divergence is stark.

• United States: contracts trade on exchanges overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Plus500 clears Kalshi's contracts for its US retail clients. State gaming regulators still contest that model — New York ordered Kalshi to stop offering sports contracts it treated as unlicensed wagering, and Kalshi sued within hours.
• Europe: the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) said in July that event contracts can fall under its retail binary options ban whatever they are called, and that selling them requires MiFID II authorization (the EU's markets-in-financial-instruments rulebook).
• United Kingdom: IG applied to Britain's Gambling Commission for the type of license Spreadex holds, planning politics, entertainment and sports markets from early 2027.

The US exchange model and the British betting license thus sit at opposite ends of the regulatory spectrum. As Bloomberg reported the hearing, Australia currently sits nearer the British pole — with the added local complication that the nearest comparable financial product, binary options, is banned outright for retail clients until at least October 2031.

Mandates versus assertions

Two facts are mandated: no operator holds an Australian financial market license, and ACMA's Polymarket block is in force under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. What remains asserted, not measured, is Court's characterization of a "high bar" — no application has yet been tested, so the licensing standard exists only as regulator statement, not precedent.

The binary-options comparison also functions as data to interrogate: ASIC's own review found 75% of retail clients lost money on the banned product, a statistic that frames how any future prediction-market application would be assessed against retail-harm criteria.

Any operator weighing Australia now faces a sequencing choice — apply under the financial services licensing regime and test ASIC's stated high bar, or wait while offshore access persists without local safeguards. Court's testimony signals the regulator has left that door open, but has not invited anyone through it.