From the journal

NAD Refers Kalshi to Regulators Over Influencer Disclosure Non-Compliance, 8 June 2026

On 8 June 2026, BBB National Programs' National Advertising Division referred Kalshi Inc. to state attorneys general and other regulatory authorities after Kalshi declined to participate in an NAD inquiry into influencer and affiliate marketing disclosures on its prediction-market platform. The inquiry examined whether Kalshi's social media advertising satisfied FTC endorsement disclosure requirements under 16 C.F.R. Part 255.

2 min read

On 8 June 2026, BBB National Programs' National Advertising Division (NAD) referred Kalshi Inc. to appropriate regulatory authorities, including relevant state attorneys general, after Kalshi declined to participate in an NAD self-regulatory inquiry. The proceeding arose through NAD's marketplace monitoring programme and is at the enforcement referral stage: NAD has no authority to compel compliance, and under NAD and NARB procedures, a company's failure to engage triggers automatic referral to authorities with jurisdiction over the advertising conduct at issue.

The NAD inquiry examined whether Kalshi's social media influencer and affiliate advertising satisfied the disclosure requirements set out in the Federal Trade Commission's Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, 16 C.F.R. Part 255. The FTC Guides require that material connections between advertisers and endorsers or affiliates be disclosed clearly and conspicuously in advertising content. NAD also examined whether Kalshi maintained adequate policies and monitoring procedures to ensure its influencer and affiliate network met those disclosure obligations.

Prediction-market platforms using influencer or affiliate marketing programmes face exposure to FTC enforcement, state consumer protection actions, and platform-level sanctions under NAD's reporting relationships with social media platforms. Kalshi's non-participation means the NAD case file, including the advertising content that triggered the inquiry, will be reported to the platforms where the advertising appeared. State attorneys general receiving the NAD referral may open independent investigations into the adequacy of Kalshi's disclosure practices.

NAD did not publish findings on the merits of whether Kalshi's disclosures were adequate, as non-participation ended the inquiry before substantive review. The referral is not a finding of liability; regulatory authorities may investigate, decline to act, or request further information. Kalshi remains subject to FTC and state-level oversight of its advertising practices independent of this referral, and social media platforms that received NAD's report may take independent action under their own advertising policies.

Licentium advises prediction-market operators and digital asset platforms on regulatory compliance across advertising, financial services, and consumer protection regimes. Operators seeking to assess their influencer marketing programmes against FTC and NAD requirements, or to prepare for potential regulatory inquiries, are welcome to reach out. Work we undertake includes FTC endorsement guide compliance, prediction market regulatory advisory, advertising law review, state regulatory engagement, and financial services marketing compliance.

Source: BBB National Programs, National Advertising Division, Referral Decision: Kalshi Inc., 8 June 2026

Prediction Markets

More from the journal

See all
Illia Prokopiev

MLR Registration and the FCA Cryptoasset Gateway to 25 October 2027

This matter concerns the transition of a United Kingdom cryptoasset business from FCA registration under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 to Part 4A permission under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The question is whether MLR registration gives conversion, grandfathering, priority, or a right to continue after 25 October 2027, and what an affected firm should do before the gateway closes. This analysis assumes an existing UK-facing cryptoasset business, no relevant Part 4A permission, and an intention to continue after commencement.

Illia Prokopiev

Matched-Category Analysis of the Hong Kong Stablecoin Issuer Route and the Singapore Digital Payment Token Service Route

This matter concerns whether current licensing data supports a commercial comparison between Hong Kong’s stablecoin issuer route and Singapore’s digital payment token service route. The question is whether the proposition remains legally accurate as of 12 August 2026. “Commercially useful” is assumed to mean useful for selecting a market-entry and operating model, not proof that either regulator is more permissive.

Illia Prokopiev

ESMA's 2026 Custody Resilience CSA and the Rules That Actually Bind

ESMA’s 2026 Common Supervisory Action is a coordinated national review of digital operational resilience in crypto-asset custody. It will test whether selected crypto-asset service providers can demonstrate effective controls across six announced workstreams. The legal questions are which requirements are binding, how national competent authorities may assess control effectiveness, and what consequences may follow from a deficiency. This analysis assumes that the firm is permitted under MiCA Article 59 to provide custody and administration within Article 3(1)(17).