US federal regulator investigates Polymarket over ads showing fake winnings as Fanatics targets the UAE and Kalshi sues Illinois

A round-up of six moves that matter for high-risk payments: a US probe into Polymarket’s advertising, no-stakes prediction products gaining ground in Japan, Fanatics entering the UAE through a joint venture, Kalshi challenging Illinois over new taxes and a betting licence, and enforcement actions in China, Myanmar, and Indonesia.

1. The US federal regulator is investigating Polymarket after advertisements showed fake winnings. For PSPs and acquiring banks, that is the usual reminder that anything adjacent to prediction markets can become a compliance and reputational issue fast, especially when marketing claims are part of the file.
2. In Japan, no-money-stake versions of Polymarket-style products are becoming more popular. The distinction matters: products without monetary wagering can sit in a different risk bucket from cash betting, even if the user experience looks similar on the surface.
3. American bookmaker Fanatics will enter the UAE through a joint venture with a local operator. For payments teams, the structure is the point: market entry via local partnership usually means local licensing, local settlement mechanics, and a fresh look at who sits where in the flow of funds.
4. Kalshi has filed a lawsuit against Illinois over new taxes and a betting licence. That is the kind of dispute that can affect whether a prediction market is treated more like a financial venue or a gambling business, which in turn shapes how banks and PSPs assess the exposure.
5. China and Myanmar are stepping up efforts against online gambling and fraud. When enforcement tightens across borders, payment rails connected to iGaming, betting, or scam-driven traffic tend to get reviewed first, because that is where the money has to move.
6. In Indonesia, 291 people have become defendants in a case involving an international network of unlicensed iGaming platforms. For operators and processors, the scale of the case is the useful detail: once a jurisdiction starts naming that many defendants, counterparties usually get much more cautious about anything with local touchpoints.