Prediction Markets Just Created a Brand New Legal Problem
Spotify recently removed over 500,000 streams from a pop song called ‘Earrings. ’
Spotify recently removed over 500,000 streams from a pop song called ‘Earrings. ’ This comes after Spotify discovered that the song had a 70% surge in US streams over the weekend, which coincides with suspicious betting activity on a prediction market called Kalshi. Prediction markets are digital platforms that allow people to bet on the outcome of future events, with the prices of bets reflecting the probability of the future event happening.
What Spotify discovered with ‘Earrings’ is that bots had been programmed to play the song on repeat in order to manipulate its ranking on Spotify’s daily US charts - when ‘Earrings’ reached the top of these charts, Kalshi paid out to traders that had betted on this outcome despite the odds of this happening earlier being pegged at only 2.5%.
Analysis
This incident sits within a broader pattern of prediction market manipulation, as the emergence of these prediction markets have made insider trading a lot more viable. For example, US prosecutors charged a soldier this past April for making prediction market bets on a military raid occurring, when they themselves had helped plan this very military raid.
Prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket operate in a regulatory grey zone as regulations were primarily designed with financial markets in mind, not Spotify charts or the infinite number of events that can be ‘predicted’ on a platform like Kalshi.
What does this mean for the sector?
- Regulators around the world will have to reckon with whether prediction market manipulation of this sort falls into existing market abuse frameworks or require new legislation
- Streaming platforms will have to invest more into real-time fraud detection, to be able to prevent manipulation of this sort before the involved traders are paid out
- Where prediction markets involve innocent parties like Malcom Todd - who recorded ‘Earrings’ they risk suffering reputational and commercial harm despite a lack of involvement in the betting
How to use this in applications
Financial regulation teams at law firms are relevant to characterising instances of market abuse like this one, and advising both Kalshi and potentially affected traders on their regulatory exposure. The key question in this instance would be whether artificially inflating a streaming metric to influence a prediction market outcome constitutes market manipulation.
The disputes teams at law firms may be engaged if Malcom Todd chooses to seek compensation for the reputational damage caused by any false association between him and the stream manipulation.
The IP teams at law firms will handle the branding dispute in this case, where Spotify has demanded that Kalshi remove its logo from the platform’s branding. This will call into question whether Kalshi’s use of Spotify’s logo constitutes trademark infringement under UK or US law.
We explain how this story can be discussed in written applications and interviews. Register now for free to unlock the full article.
Register now to unlock the full free article
