Imagine two locker rooms. In one, veteran players are still arguing with the referees over which rulebook applies to them (federal or state) months into overtime. In the other, a rookie just walked in, set its own rulebook on the table, and said: here's how we're going to play. That rookie is Novig, and its version of the game includes something Kalshi and Polymarket don't require: a minimum age of 21.
Novig's New Responsible Trading Rules
Novig, the sports-only prediction market platform, announced this week a full set of consumer protection measures: Users will need to verify their identity, with reverification required in certain cases, and Novig says it will suspend any account found to misuse an identity or break the 21-plus rule.
Beyond the 21-plus baseline, Novig is embedding consumer safeguards directly into its platform mechanics. Traded accounts will feature permanent self-exclusion options and strict deposit and loss thresholds, paired with mandatory delay periods before any limits can be increased. Additionally, the exchange is banning zero-risk marketing and incentives that entice traders to chase losses.
Novig co-founder and CEO Jacob Fortinsky framed the move as a matter of credibility, saying "trust is the foundation of every market" and that it should be earned through clear rules, not left to chance.
Why The Age Requirement Is A Flashpoint
Most prediction market platforms set their minimum age at 18, treating trading contracts like any other financial product. Traditional sportsbooks, by contrast, has required a minimum age of 21 in nearly every state since sports wagering expanded following the 2018 overturning of PASPA.
That gap has become a real source of tension.
Novig’s timing could not have been more calculated. Barely 48 hours earlier, Nevada’s problem gambling agency severed its alliance with the national council, a high-profile rupture driven directly by Kalshi’s refusal to abandon its 18-and-over access policy.
Prediction market operators, for their part, maintain that their contracts are regulated financial derivatives, not games of chance, and that comparing the two misses the legal distinction that separates them.
The Legal Battle Behind The Headlines
Novig's rules land in the middle of a much bigger question working its way through U.S. courts: are these platforms financial exchanges under federal oversight, or some kind of operations that skipped state licensing?
The answers so far don't agree.
In April, the Third Circuit sided with the industry, ruling in KalshiEX LLC v. Flaherty that sports contracts traded on federally registered exchanges fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction.
A New York federal judge went the other way in July, finding that state gambling laws aren't preempted by federal authority and denying Kalshi's bid to block state regulators.
Similar fights are playing out in Nevada, Michigan, Massachusetts, Tennessee and beyond, while the CFTC has taken a supportive posture toward the industry, pushing platforms toward safer contract design without settling the core jurisdiction question. Many legal observers expect the matter to eventually reach the Supreme Court.
