Photo of Ayana Brown

Ayana Brown

Subscribe to Ayana Brown's Posts

Ayana represents clients in litigation and government investigations. She is experienced representing both corporate and individual clients in complex legal matters, including those involving the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Her practice spans multiple industries, such as financial services, health care, and energy.

Contact:Read more about Ayana Brown

A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee marks a significant development in the ongoing dispute over whether sports event contracts offered on prediction market platforms are properly regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or whether such contracts should be regulated by the states as sports betting. Tennessee officials had issued a cease‑and‑desist order contending that certain sports‑linked event contracts were akin to unlicensed sports wagering under state law. Prediction contract platform provider, Kalshi, responded by filing suit in federal court, arguing that these contracts were “swaps” governed exclusively by the Commodity Exchange Act and subject to the CFTC’s jurisdiction, not Tennessee’s sports‑betting framework.

Popular prediction markets platforms recently announced that they have formed the Coalition for Prediction Markets. According to the coalition’s website, it aims to unite exchanges, brokers, and advocates to expand consumer access to safe, transparent, and integrity-driven prediction markets in the U.S. The coalition contends that prediction markets currently operate under a federal framework, but that framework is being threatened by state regulators “seeking to block consumer access and extend their own authority.” This messaging signals that prediction market operators are prepared to vigorously oppose state regulation in an effort to preserve exclusive federal oversight.

Many prediction market firms have sought to avoid state regulation by emphasizing how their services differ from traditional sports betting. They characterize their offerings as “event contracts” or “swaps,” which are only subject to Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) oversight and note that they operate peer‑to‑peer exchanges, earning revenue from transaction fees rather than customer losses. Many state regulators have disagreed with this argument, however, asserting that event contracts cannot be distinguished from state-regulated gaming. Federal courts in various states have reached different conclusions on this issue. A Nevada federal court has now weighed in, ruling that some of these services fall under state gaming law.

On November 18, two prominent sports wagering and fantasy sports operators announced that they are leaving the American Gaming Association (AGA). The AGA is the leading trade group for casinos, gaming manufacturers, and sportsbooks. The split follows the AGA’s recent announcement of its firm stance against “prediction markets” and a forthcoming resolution to exclude companies that offer them. Prediction markets include platforms that allow individuals to trade on the outcomes of future events — whether sports-related or not.

Summary

  • The False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provision allows private citizens (relators) to sue on the government’s behalf for FCA violations and receive a portion of any settlement or award.
  • The FCA qui tam provision has evolved since its inception, and recent U.S. Supreme Court cases signal a move to rein in the power of relators.
  • Funding sources, claim truthfulness, and companies’ subjective understanding will be critical issues in FCA enforcement efforts against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
  • The current Court hasn’t ruled on the constitutionality of the FCA qui tam provision because no case before it directly raised the issue, but it may soon have the chance.

On August 19, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Allied Stone Inc. (Allied Stone) and its president, Jia “Jerry” Lim, agreed to pay $12.4 million in settlement to resolve allegations that the company violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by evading, or conspiring to evade, antidumping and countervailing duties owed on quartz surface products imported from China. Allied Stone is a Dallas-based countertop and cabinetry supplier. According to the DOJ, Allied Stone misrepresented Chinese quartz surface products as other merchandise subject to lesser duties to avoid the applicable antidumping and countervailing duties. The company also allegedly failed to declare and pay, and failed to ensure that others were declaring and paying, applicable duties owed to the U.S. on entries of its Chinese quartz surface products.

On May 13, New Jersey Attorney General (AG) Matthew Platkin announced a proposed $450 million settlement agreement with 3M regarding allegations that, among other issues, contamination of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) emanated from a site now owned by 3M. The settlement resolves these claims and New Jersey’s broader claims that the state and its agencies have or may have in the future regarding PFAS. The settlement agreement remains subject to court approval.

2025 is already shaping up to be an active year for False Claims Act (FCA) litigation. With the recent announcements of executive orders that may expand the FCA as an enforcement tool, as discussed in a recent Troutman Pepper Locke client alert, everyone is keeping a close eye on what is next. In the past few weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court has gotten in on the FCA action.