Techme101.com

Caesars Entertainment (Caesars) posted the news of its third-quarter report, which was less than buoyant, detailing a growing gap in Las Vegas revenue.
The casino and leisure brand reported a 9.8% change from the 2025 installment of the report compared to the previous year. This meant a loss of $110 million to the company’s signature Sin City takings.
Caesars’ CEO says Las Vegas numbers are down
We reported that there seemed to be a less-than-optimistic outlook for the third quarter from senior figures at Caesars.
Chief Executive Officer, Tom Reeg, said at the time (30 July) that “Vegas started leaking as a market (at the) end of May. That leak accelerated into June. I’d expect the third quarter to be soft.”
In concert with his predictions, Reeg said the Las Vegas location’s Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization (EBITDA) “declined during the quarter due to lower city-wide visitation and poor table games hold.”
The company remained stable in the digital environment, which Reeg referred to as “strong” in the face of the other falling figures in the sporting departments.
This strength, said the CEO, was “driven by continued product improvements, while Adjusted EBITDA was negatively impacted by lower-than-expected sports hold during September.”
Caesars’ financial balance sheet in the third-quarter
As for the report’s publication, Caesars has $11.9 billion in aggregate debt. On paper, this looks like an incredibly risky amount of debt for a company, but the publication notes a $2.1 billion rolling credit facility and a smaller $25 million location, with $836 million cash on hand.
Shares were also a key point of interest, with share value a key topic during the third quarter, reporting that shares on the last day of closing in 2024 for the third quarter were $40 compared to the $22 closing bell of 2025.
“We continue to view our shares as undervalued and expect a balanced approach to free cash flow allocation across debt reduction and share buybacks,” said Bret Yunker, Chief Financial Officer.
Reeg seemed unfazed by the clear dip in both Las Vegas figures and a stark contrast in the price per share comparison of the previous year.
“As we look to the fourth quarter, we anticipate improved operating performance given stronger occupancy in Las Vegas, continued momentum in our Caesars Digital segment, and stable operating trends in our regional portfolio,” he said.
One of the key thorns in traditional gambling’s side has been the emergence of online betting in a plethora of ways. Bettors can now gamble from their phones on a host of prediction markets like Robinhood, Kalshi, and Polymarket.
To underline the changing of the guard in betting terms, Caesars was offloaded from the S&P 500 at the time that Robinhood was added. The share price of Robinhood has barely moved in the space of a month ($146 per share in October 2025) compared to the falling Caesars, going from $28 to a low of $19.77.
Featured image: Caesars Entertainment / Canva
The post Caesars Entertainment’s third-quarter report posts Las Vegas losses appeared first on ReadWrite.

Betting and Gaming Council (BGC) leader, Grainne Hurst, referred to those at risk of gambling harms as a small minority.
Hurst made the statement whilst giving evidence to the Treasury Select Committee as part of a session on how gambling should be taxed in light of the looming British Budget 2025 announcement in November.
Hurst was asked repeatedly about the types of social harm gambling can bring, and on multiple occasions, the BGC leader denied that the industry is “responsible” for these harms.
BGC chief denies the gambling industry is at fault
The Treasury Select Committee was broadcast live on YouTube and featured a number of MPs and panelists discussing the topics of gambling, taxation, and social risks.

Dame Meg Hillier MP, chair of the session and the committee, introduced questions to both Hurst and Stephen Hodgson, Chair of the Tax Committee at the BGC.
Throughout the questioning, Hurst repeatedly played down the impact that gambling has on people at risk of falling into harm, referring to their number as a “small minority.”
“We know that 72% of customers from the Gambling Commission zone survey say that they do it because it’s fun. But rightly the industry is taking additional measures to make sure that the small minority of people who are at risk mitigate these harms,” said Hurst.
Dame Hiller was direct in addressing the issue of research that went into Hurst’s position, saying, “Can I just be clear. Have you got any independent evidence supporting this position? That it’s not the industry creating social ills. It’s just the people, and how they how individuals choose to interact with it (gambling).”
Hurst said, “So that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that the industry has a role to play in making sure that we mitigate any harm that could be caused.”
After the appearance, a BGC spokesperson told ReadWrite: “The BGC takes the issue of gambling related harm incredibly seriously.
“Our CEO, Grainne Hurst, was clear throughout the session that the industry recognises gambling can cause harm and has a role to play in mitigating it. The BGC’s priority remains raising standards, promoting safer gambling, and protecting consumers.”
MPs press Hurst on evidence-led position
John Grady MP for Glasgow East posted his questions to X. They included his response to Hurst that challenged the betting chief’s views on the research that went into her position on social harms and that the industry was not at fault.

I regularly see the terrible financial and emotional harm that online gambling causes.
The industry must be regulated and taxed to ensure that individuals are protected and that the online gambling industry pays its fair share. My question today @CommonsTreasury pic.twitter.com/OgEMLiJMYV
— John Grady MP (@johnadgrady) October 28, 2025

“I see terrible harm in my constituency with people getting into debt,” he said when Hurst denied the risks of social harm. “You can’t point to any peer-reviewed evidence to support this position?” he aimed at Hurst.
“There are affordability checks coming into force to ensure that customers are better protected. There’s a range of measures that the industry is doing, which is right for the industry to do,” concluded Hurst on the social harm topic.
Ex-Paddy Power co-founder has ‘huge regrets’
Earlier in the session, MP for Earley and Woodley, Yuan Yang questioned the ex-Paddy Power co-founder, Stewart Kenny, alongside Carsten Jung, Interim associate director for economic policy and AI at Institute for Public Policy Research, and Dr Theo Bertram, Director at Social Market Foundation.

Stewart Kenny, one of the co-founders of Paddy Power, told me on the Treasury Select Committee today that he regrets many parts of the industry that he once led. (1/4) pic.twitter.com/fcCOBxkPkj
— Yuan Yang (@YuanfenYang) October 28, 2025

She said, “A proper tax on online slots and predatory practices would raise money while also combating problem gambling.”
Kenny responded: “There’s two ways of seeing whether a product is highly addictive. How quick is it between investment and result and how quickly
can you repeat the dose?”
“I have huge regrets and but I’m still a believer in the gambling industry being part of the entertainment mix.”
The betting world is bracing for the Budget 2025 announcement in early November and some of the topics discussed and the key talking points around Hurst’s views will take centre stage in the Treasury Committee report.
Dame Hiller concluded the session saying “we will consider how we report to the Treasury, I’m sure they will have been tuning in to the discussion.”
UPDATED: Statement from the BGC added on October 29, 2025.
Featured Image: UK Parliament
The post BGC boss Hurst downplays gambling harm, calling at-risk individuals a small minority appeared first on ReadWrite.

The United Kingdom’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has agreed with a complaint about WHG (International) Ltd, which operates as William Hill Online, after an in-app promotion for the game Marble Race Live was ruled misleading.
The ad appeared in the William Hill mobile app on May 27, 2025. It featured the headline claim “Enjoy £40 on us! When you opt in and stake £20.” In the small print below, it revealed the real requirement: “Min. £40 stake on Marble Race Live.”
A customer challenged the ad after finding out that a £40 minimum stake was actually required, even though the headline made it sound like staking £20 was enough to qualify.
ASA upholds William Hill ads complaint
William Hill admitted that the headline was wrong. The company said the person who complained had seen a banner in the mobile app that showed the incorrect wording: “Enjoy £40 on us! When you opt in and stake £20.” The operator explained that this clashed with the actual terms of the promotion and happened because someone manually edited the ad while resizing it. A typo accidentally changed the staking requirement from £40 to £20.
The company said only one version of the ad was affected and it was shown to a targeted group of up to 3,057 customers during a short promotional period between 17 and 19 May 2025. They added that anyone who clicked into the offer would have seen the correct full terms and conditions before opting in. William Hill argued that this reduced the chance of any real harm to consumers, and said it had reviewed its internal processes to stop similar mistakes happening again.
The ASA upheld the complaint. It said consumers would interpret the headline claim “Enjoy £40 on us! When you opt in and stake £20” to mean that staking £20 qualifies them for the offer. The body said the real requirement was £40 and that the small print saying “Min. £40 stake on Marble Race Live” contradicted the main claim instead of clarifying it.
The ruling explained that adding a higher qualifying stake in the small print made the ad likely to mislead. The ASA stated: “Because the ad suggested that a stake over £20 was eligible for the offer, when that was not the case, we concluded that the ad was misleading.”
The regulator found that the promotion broke CAP Code rules 3.1 on misleading advertising and 3.9 on qualification.
The ASA said the ad “must not appear in the form complained of” and told William Hill to make sure that future promotional claims do not contradict the terms and conditions that apply to them. Last month, the ASA ruled that William Hill breached consumer protection regulations with another promotion.
Featured image: Flickr, licensed under CC BY 2.0
The post ASA rules William Hill misled customers with incorrect marble race promotion appeared first on ReadWrite.

Over the past ten days, the sports world has been rocked by scandal. More than 30 people have been arrested by the FBI for allegedly turning pro basketball into what investigators describe as a criminal betting ring powered by insider information. At the same time, prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket are suddenly everywhere. Kalshi is tied up in lawsuits across the country. Polymarket is trying to re-enter the United States after being pushed offshore. All of it raises a simple question with enormous consequences. As prediction markets grow, are we heading toward more match fixing and more insider trading?
The latest FBI bust only heightened those concerns. On Thursday (October 23), federal agents arrested an NBA player and a coach, accusing them of schemes that included manipulating game outcomes to swing bets.
That came just 24 hours after the NHL became the first major sports league to sign a licensing agreement with prediction markets. These are the fast growing sites that look like the next big thing in betting, but often operate in murky legal territory.
The same day, DraftKings jumped in by acquiring a prediction market company, signaling that the industry’s biggest players see serious upside.
All of this is happening as federal authorities start drawing parallels between sports betting and insider trading. Some experts warn that moving betting activity into prediction markets could make those risks worse. Others believe that using public blockchains could offer transparency that traditional sportsbooks cannot match.
Two experts who spoke directly with ReadWrite said prediction markets are still gambling at their core, and could introduce a new “element of risk.”
CFTC faces criticism over alleged lack of scrutiny of prediction markets
These platforms function by letting users buy futures contracts tied to real world outcomes. That puts them under the oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a regulator that has spent most of its 50 years watching agricultural derivatives, not pro sports. Now the CFTC is expected to oversee both this new class of sports contracts and much of crypto, largely due to a major push by the current Trump administration.

“The trading limits in prior prediction markets were too small to create the incentives necessary to fix matches or risk prosecution for insider trading. Also, expanding to sporting events introduced an entire new element of risk.” – Tom Gruca, Iowa Electronic Market Professor in Marketing and Director

A former CFTC official told Decrypt, “I think the CFTC is going to get swallowed.” The official added, “You’re going to see more and more of these cases of insider trading happening on prediction markets, because the CFTC isn’t doing surveillance, they don’t have the manpower to catch it on their own.”
Legal analyst Daniel Wallach echoed the concern during a recent Indian Gaming Association webinar. He said that Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour “teased the possibility of other sports leagues signing similar partnerships,” even though leagues like the NBA and MLB have already warned regulators that existing safeguards are insufficient.

Wallach pointed out that prediction markets are able to “self certify any event contract they want and it goes into effect immediately which is hysterical.” He added that the “CFTC already has a regulation that expressly prohibits event contracts” and cited rule 40.11, which bans contracts related to gaming or anything illegal under state law.
In his view, “All of those people are benefiting because the CFTC has been infiltrated and captured by the Trump administration and refuses to enforce that existing rule.”
Prediction markets could bring in additional match fixing ‘risk’
Tom Gruca, professor of marketing and director of the Iowa Electronic Market, the first prediction market founded in 1988, shared his insights with ReadWrite.
When asked whether the rise of prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket could increase the chances of match-fixing and insider trading, he answered, “Yes. The trading limits in prior prediction markets were too small to create the incentives necessary to fix matches or risk prosecution for insider trading. Also, expanding to sporting events introduced an entire new element of risk.”
On the line between regulated derivatives and gambling, he explained, “Regulated derivatives are supposed to help market participants mitigate risk, e.g., having crop prices rise when you have already set prices for your end product like breakfast cereal. Gambling is the introduction of risk where none existed before. There is no risk associated with who wins the first game of the world series. Gamblers (and gambling sites) create that risk.”
He said league partnerships could help by eliminating prop bets, which removes incentives for individual players to participate in fixing. But he warned that constant gambling promotion “creates the appearance that gambling is more important than the games themselves,” and that this poses reputational risks when match fixing inevitably occurs.
On crypto-native platforms, Gruca said, “There are no restrictions on who is participating. They could be minors. Also, it is not clear who regulates the verification of the identity of the bettor. It is easier to see match fixing when you can have insights into why the prices are moving due to the actions of a few individual traders.”
He also warned that prediction markets offer “an easy way to launder money if there are no identity controls,” and said tax evasion is easier when platforms operate without clear regulation.
Blurred lines between betting and derivatives
Daniel O’Boyle, Senior Business Reporter for InGame.com, told ReadWrite that the divide between derivatives and gambling is already blurred.
“Nobody really knows exactly where the line is,” he said, adding that many prediction market products fall into both categories. A contract offered on a CFTC regulated exchange is, by definition, a derivative. But if that contract is tied to a sports outcome, “it’s obviously gambling.” The result is a weird overlap where something can be both at the same time.

“Maybe – at least at the moment, no crypto-native platforms are operating under CFTC registration – CFTC rules effectively make it impossible. So these platforms like Polymarket are essentially self-regulated, so there’s nobody out there making sure they enforce insider trading rules.” – Daniel O’Boyle, InGame Senior Business Reporter

He said league partnerships could help if leagues demand strong integrity standards. But if leagues simply accept money for “official partner” branding, he worries they will be endorsing prediction markets less equipped to fight match fixing than sportsbooks.
On crypto-native platforms like Polymarket, O’Boyle said they operate without CFTC registration, which means “there’s nobody out there making sure they enforce insider trading rules.” Kalshi at least publishes lists of people who are prohibited from trading. Polymarket generally do not. That absence increases the chance of suspicious activity, such as odds spiking right before an announcement. He noted that public blockchain data can, in theory, help detect these patterns, but only if platforms choose to enforce fair play.
He also pointed out that unclear or poorly defined market rules can create opportunities for exploitation, and that prediction markets sometimes lack the responsible gambling tools that traditional operators provide. The CFTC has no experience regulating gambling addiction, leaving a gap that no one is filling.
Concerns over lack of guardrails
Wallach remains concerned about the CFTC’s capacity. “If there’s a regulation on point which says these are not allowed and the CFTC is not enforcing that rule, it does beg the question, why is that happening?”

“Due to its size and historic mandate, the regulator mainly relies on whistleblowers and self-reporting by market participants to eliminate corruption on markets it oversees.”
— Daniel Wallach (@WALLACHLEGAL) October 26, 2025

He cited the government shutdown and said the agency currently has 30% fewer staff. “All of their employees are basically furloughed, except for 31 people, which is less than the size of the Rhode Island Lottery Commission, which means that the Rhode Island Lottery is a more robust regulator.”
He argued that, in practice, prediction markets face almost no restraint. “There are no guardrails, there’s no permission. You just say, hey, I’m doing it.” He added that the CFTC has taken no enforcement actions, which is why companies feel free to expand aggressively. “Parlays and props, they can put up anything that they want.”
Meanwhile, Polymarket has shown little interest in addressing insider trading concerns. When the Nobel Peace Prize market raised questions about traders possibly using private information, the company did not launch an investigation or issue a statement. Instead, Polymarket reposted a news alert and then turned the situation into marketing fodder. “JUST IN: It has been revealed only 5 people at the Nobel Peace Prize foundation knew the winner before they were announced,” the platform posted. “Everyone checking Polymarket knew.”

JUST IN: It has been revealed only 5 people at the Nobel Peace Prize foundation knew the winner before they were announced.
Everyone checking Polymarket knew.
— Polymarket (@Polymarket) October 11, 2025

Polymarket is preparing to relaunch in the United States under CFTC rules after being forced offshore in 2022, but the company did not respond to requests for comment from ReadWrite on its approach to insider trading.
Despite their differences, Kalshi and Polymarket share something politically notable. Both count Donald Trump Jr. as an adviser.
ReadWrite has reached out to the CFTC, Kalshi, and Polymarket for comment.
Featured image: Canva
The post Experts warn prediction markets raise match fixing risks amid NBA sports betting scandal appeared first on ReadWrite.

A federal judge has sent a case involving the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and KalshiEX LLC (Kalshi) back down to the state level.
The news comes on the back of a lengthy battle between the two under a case filed “Violation of sports wagering statute,” by the Bay State’s Attorney General, Andrea Joy Campbell.
Kalshi had been pushing for the federal courts to back their argument through the company’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) status and under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).
The original case stated that Kalshi had been offering event contracts across its platform “under the guise of ‘event contracts’” to Massachusetts residents without the required licensure from the Massachusetts Gaming Commission in violation of G.L. c. 23N.”
Kalshi vs Massachusetts case sent back to state level
Judge Richard G Stearns of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts has now decided, according to court commentator Daniel Wallach, to let this be decided at the state level.
Wallach posted the case decision to remand the case to the state on social media, which could be a crippling blow to Kalshi’s federally approved sports events contracts.

BREAKING: Massachusetts federal court GRANTS the Commonwealth’s motion to remand its lawsuit against Kalshi back to state court, where the Commonwealth’s previously-scheduled emergency motion for preliminary injunction (and a likely loss) awaits Kalshi. Order is not appealable. pic.twitter.com/vmVLsPKh0U
— Daniel Wallach (@WALLACHLEGAL) October 28, 2025

CFTC and CEA not seen as complete preemption
Attorney General Campbell’s original filing (September 12, 2025) document stated that the predictions marketeer exposed the residents of Massachusetts to a “plethora of harms, including but not limited to, the public health risks associated with compulsive gambling—a clinically recognized behavioral addiction—and disastrous financial losses.”
Kalshi had been using the banners of the CFTC and the CEA, stating that they preclude the regulation of the specific subset of sports gambling the company offers through contract markets.
Judge Stearns has ruled that he has considered Kalshi’s perspective, but the CEA does not permit the predictions provider’s CFTC status under this act to be considered as having complete pre-emption. Instead, Judge Stearns decided that this status “This is a plain vanilla federal preemption defense, not a claim of complete preemption.”
The case will now be heard in the Massachusetts Superior Court for Suffolk County and could have a huge bearing on Kalshi’s future in the state and that of similar betting companies.
Kalshi has been battling a host of other states, seeking relief from their court action and the attention of the nation’s betting regulators.
As we reported, the predictions provider has appealed for a “permanent injunction and declaratory relief,” against the New York Gambling Commission, which issued a cease-and-desist letter to Kalshi.
Kalshi has argued, “This action challenges the State of New York’s intrusion into the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate derivatives trading on exchanges overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (‘CFTC’).”
Featured image: Adobe Firefly
The post Federal judge returns Massachusetts vs Kalshi case to state court for final resolution appeared first on ReadWrite.