Europe Has No Licensed Prediction Markets. ESMA Just Raised the Entry Bar

Friday, 03/07/2026 | 12:41 GMT by Tanya Chepkova
  • ESMA did not ban prediction markets in Europe, but it made legal classification the starting point for any future launch.
  • Whether a platform needs MiFID II, MiCA or a national gambling licence now depends on how each event contract is classified under EU law.
ESMA (shutterstock)

In its 3 July statement, ESMA warned that event contracts may fall within the EU’s long-standing retail ban on binary options. The regulator addressed a market that barely exists in Europe and raised the bar for any future launch.

The prediction market boom has so far been a US story. Kalshi and Crypto.com operate under CFTC oversight, Polymarket serves its global audience from offshore, and none of the major platforms runs a licensed European operation.

Any firm considering a European launch must first answer a more basic question: how would its contracts be classified under EU law?

Regulators Acted Before the Market Arrived

European regulators have so far targeted platforms that reach local users without holding local licences. On 26 May, Spain's Ministry of Consumer Affairs temporarily blocked Kalshi and Polymarket for operating without a gambling licence.

On 19 June, gambling regulators from nine European countries issued a joint statement against unlicensed prediction market platforms targeting the region. The signatories, including Belgium, France, Germany and Spain, cited consumer protection and integrity risks around the FIFA World Cup and urged sports bodies to check operators’ legal status before signing partnerships.

On 3 July, ESMA said that existing national product intervention measures on binary options apply to event contracts that qualify as financial instruments.

Until this month, the operative question was gambling licensing. National regulators in Belgium, France, and elsewhere had treated event contracts as unlicensed betting products.

ESMA's statement adds another question: whether the product qualifies as a financial instrument under MiFID II. The regulator did not answer it with a new ban.

Instead, it tied the consequences to the classification itself: where an event contract does qualify, existing national restrictions on binary options may apply to that contract. Legal commentators had flagged this classification gap months before ESMA stepped in.

Four Routes In, None of Them Tested

Four business models could, in principle, bring prediction products to Europe. None currently does so in licensed form, and after ESMA each faces its own classification question first.

Business modelExampleMain regulatory question
US event exchangeKalshiWhether equivalent contracts would qualify as MiFID II financial instruments
Broker distributionRobinhood, Plus500Whether the contracts they would distribute count as binary options for retail clients
Crypto-native prediction marketPolymarketMiCA, MiFID II or national gambling law
MiCA-licensed crypto exchangeNo confirmed examplesWhether a CASP licence is sufficient if contracts are treated as financial instruments

The fourth row reflects the current state of the market. None of the major MiCA-licensed exchanges has publicly announced plans to offer prediction products in Europe.

Crypto.com, often cited alongside Kalshi and Polymarket, runs its prediction offering through Crypto.com Derivatives North America, a CFTC-regulated exchange serving US clients.

ESMA’s statement means a firm considering a European launch now faces a contract-by-contract legal assessment before it can determine which licence, if any, to apply for.

The Classification Question Comes First

In March, before ESMA's statement, lawyer Terence Cassar argued on the Oxford Business Law Blog that the core problem for the European market was the absence of a clear classification for prediction contracts.

He outlined three possible outcomes: a contract may qualify as a MiFID II derivative, in some cases a binary option; it may be prohibited outright on public policy grounds; or, falling outside MiFID II, it may default to national gambling frameworks.

He proposed a structured "Prediction Test", modelled on Malta's Financial Instrument Test for crypto-assets, to guide classification by exclusion.

The legal uncertainty identified by commentators is now beginning to receive regulatory clarification. ESMA's statement establishes that, for at least part of the event contract universe, the analysis starts with MiFID II.

ESMA has clarified one part of the European puzzle, without creating a clear route to market. Any firm considering a launch must now start with contract classification, before licensing, distribution or product design.

In its 3 July statement, ESMA warned that event contracts may fall within the EU’s long-standing retail ban on binary options. The regulator addressed a market that barely exists in Europe and raised the bar for any future launch.

The prediction market boom has so far been a US story. Kalshi and Crypto.com operate under CFTC oversight, Polymarket serves its global audience from offshore, and none of the major platforms runs a licensed European operation.

Any firm considering a European launch must first answer a more basic question: how would its contracts be classified under EU law?

Regulators Acted Before the Market Arrived

European regulators have so far targeted platforms that reach local users without holding local licences. On 26 May, Spain's Ministry of Consumer Affairs temporarily blocked Kalshi and Polymarket for operating without a gambling licence.

On 19 June, gambling regulators from nine European countries issued a joint statement against unlicensed prediction market platforms targeting the region. The signatories, including Belgium, France, Germany and Spain, cited consumer protection and integrity risks around the FIFA World Cup and urged sports bodies to check operators’ legal status before signing partnerships.

On 3 July, ESMA said that existing national product intervention measures on binary options apply to event contracts that qualify as financial instruments.

Until this month, the operative question was gambling licensing. National regulators in Belgium, France, and elsewhere had treated event contracts as unlicensed betting products.

ESMA's statement adds another question: whether the product qualifies as a financial instrument under MiFID II. The regulator did not answer it with a new ban.

Instead, it tied the consequences to the classification itself: where an event contract does qualify, existing national restrictions on binary options may apply to that contract. Legal commentators had flagged this classification gap months before ESMA stepped in.

Four Routes In, None of Them Tested

Four business models could, in principle, bring prediction products to Europe. None currently does so in licensed form, and after ESMA each faces its own classification question first.

Business modelExampleMain regulatory question
US event exchangeKalshiWhether equivalent contracts would qualify as MiFID II financial instruments
Broker distributionRobinhood, Plus500Whether the contracts they would distribute count as binary options for retail clients
Crypto-native prediction marketPolymarketMiCA, MiFID II or national gambling law
MiCA-licensed crypto exchangeNo confirmed examplesWhether a CASP licence is sufficient if contracts are treated as financial instruments

The fourth row reflects the current state of the market. None of the major MiCA-licensed exchanges has publicly announced plans to offer prediction products in Europe.

Crypto.com, often cited alongside Kalshi and Polymarket, runs its prediction offering through Crypto.com Derivatives North America, a CFTC-regulated exchange serving US clients.

ESMA’s statement means a firm considering a European launch now faces a contract-by-contract legal assessment before it can determine which licence, if any, to apply for.

The Classification Question Comes First

In March, before ESMA's statement, lawyer Terence Cassar argued on the Oxford Business Law Blog that the core problem for the European market was the absence of a clear classification for prediction contracts.

He outlined three possible outcomes: a contract may qualify as a MiFID II derivative, in some cases a binary option; it may be prohibited outright on public policy grounds; or, falling outside MiFID II, it may default to national gambling frameworks.

He proposed a structured "Prediction Test", modelled on Malta's Financial Instrument Test for crypto-assets, to guide classification by exclusion.

The legal uncertainty identified by commentators is now beginning to receive regulatory clarification. ESMA's statement establishes that, for at least part of the event contract universe, the analysis starts with MiFID II.

ESMA has clarified one part of the European puzzle, without creating a clear route to market. Any firm considering a launch must now start with contract classification, before licensing, distribution or product design.

About the Author: Tanya Chepkova
Tanya Chepkova
  • 266 Articles
  • 1 Follower
About the Author: Tanya Chepkova
Tanya Chepkova is a News Editor at Finance Magnates with more than 16 years of experience in financial journalism, covering forex, crypto, and digital asset markets. Her work spans daily industry reporting and data-driven, long-form explainers focused on market structure, trading models, and regulatory shifts. Before joining Finance Magnates, she led the editorial team of a cryptocurrency-focused media outlet for six years. Her reporting combines analytical depth with clear storytelling, with particular attention to how structural changes in trading, stablecoin infrastructure, and emerging products such as prediction markets reshape the broader financial ecosystem. She covers global developments and provides additional insight into CIS markets. Areas of Coverage: Crypto and digital asset markets Prediction markets Stablecoins and cross-border payments Industry analysis and long-form explainers
  • 266 Articles
  • 1 Follower

More from the Author

FinTech

!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|} !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}