Photo of Stephen C. Piepgrass

Stephen C. Piepgrass

Subscribe to Stephen C. Piepgrass's Posts

Stephen leads the firm’s Regulatory Investigations, Strategy + Enforcement (RISE) Practice Group. He focuses his practice on enforcement actions, investigations, and litigation. Stephen primarily represents clients engaging with, or being investigated by, state attorneys general and other state or local governmental enforcement bodies, including the CFPB and FTC, as well as clients involved with litigation, with a particular focus on heavily regulated industries. He also has experience advising clients on data and privacy issues, including handling complex investigations into data incidents by state attorneys general other state and federal regulators. Additionally, Stephen provides strategic counsel to Troutman Pepper’s Strategies clients who need assistance with public policy, advocacy, and government relations strategies.

Follow:Read more about Stephen C. PiepgrassStephen C.'s Linkedin Profile

Troutman Pepper Locke’s Securities Investigations and Enforcement team counsels and defends clients through all stages of securities enforcement proceedings. Our attorneys have served in key government agencies and regulatory bodies, and bring their insight to bear in each representation. The team includes a former branch chief of the Division of Enforcement at the SEC, former enforcement lawyers, regulators and government attorneys, assistant United States Attorneys and former assistant attorneys general, as well as in-house counsel for public companies. Our lawyers and practice have been identified as leaders in the field by publications such as the Legal 500, SuperLawyers, Benchmark Litigation, and Chambers USA.

In this episode of Regulatory Oversight, host Stephen Piepgrass, who leads Troutman Pepper Locke’s Regulatory Investigation Strategy and Enforcement (RISE) practice, is joined by partner Lu Reyes for a deep dive into the national security and enforcement implications of predictive markets. The discussion centers on a headline‑grabbing Polymarket trade that appeared to anticipate former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s capture and yielded roughly $400,000 in profit, raising questions about insider trading and classified information leaks.

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.

In the final episode of our special 12 Days of Regulatory Insights podcast series, Regulatory Oversight co-host Stephen Piepgrass sits down with Partner Ghillaine Reid — co-leader of the firm’s securities investigations and enforcement team and a former SEC New York Regional Office branch chief and staff attorney — to assess how shifts in SEC leadership and composition are reshaping rulemaking and enforcement.

In early December 2025, federally regulated derivatives exchange KalshiEX LLC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut challenging a cease-and-desist order issued by the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) directing Kalshi to halt operations in the state. The DCP contends that Kalshi, along with platforms such as Robinhood and Crypto.com, operates an unlicensed and illegal sports betting platform in violation of Connecticut law. According to the agency, Kalshi’s sports event contracts fall squarely within the state’s definition of sports wagering and expose consumers to risk because they operate outside Connecticut’s regulated gaming framework, lack required integrity controls, and are not subject to consumer protection oversight. Connecticut officials have emphasized that “a prediction market wager is not an investment,” and that Kalshi’s platform offers no recourse for consumers under state law if disputes arise.

In this episode of our special 12 Days of Regulatory Insights podcast series, Stephen Piepgrass is joined by Cole White from our RISE Practice Group’s gaming team for a timely, candid conversation on integrity risks and regulatory trends reshaping the legal gaming landscape.

In this episode of our special 12 Days of Regulatory Insights podcast series, Stephen Piepgrass sits down with partner Mike Yaghi of the RISE practice group and State Attorneys General (AG) team to explore how businesses can strategically engage with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) to build consumer trust, bolster reputations, and reduce regulatory risk.

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.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has abruptly reversed a recently approved rule change that would have permitted college athletes and athletic department staff to bet on professional sports. Under a rarely used override process, more than two-thirds of Division I member schools voted within a 30-day window last month to rescind the proposal. The threshold was reached on November 21, nullifying the rule change before it could take effect. As a result, the longstanding ban on sports wagering by NCAA student-athletes and staff remains in place across all three NCAA divisions. However, even if the rule had been implemented, college athletes and athletic department staff would still have been barred from betting on any NCAA contests, as the rescinded change only concerned wagering on professional sports. The vote to revoke the new rule underscores the NCAA membership’s cautious stance amid an evolving sports betting landscape.