ReadWriteWeb
Swish Analytics is dealing with a much wider legal challenge after two fresh lawsuits landed this week. One comes from OddsJam and OpticOdds as part of their ongoing courtroom fight over sports betting odds. The other was filed separately by fantasy sports publisher , which claims the company improperly scraped and used its player news and injury information.
The cases add to litigation that began in December 2024, when Swish sued OddsJam and OpticOdds. In the original complaint, Swish accused both companies of copying and redistributing betting odds that it says are proprietary. The defendants rejected those accusations, and the dispute has continued in San Francisco Superior Court.
The latest filings introduce new legal theories and widen the issues before the courts. OddsJam and OpticOdds are now also accusing Swish of violating California antitrust law and engaging in other unlawful business practices. At the same time, RotoWire has launched its own separate action centered on the alleged scraping and commercial use of its sports information.
OddsJam and OpticOdds respond to Swish Analytics with antitrust allegations
OddsJam and OpticOdds said they have filed a cross-complaint accusing Swish Analytics of violating California’s Cartwright Act, trade libel, unfair competition, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and breach of contract. Their filing argues that Swish’s business model reduces competition by supplying a common pricing algorithm to multiple sportsbooks.
According to the , the companies argue they are seeking “to put an end to Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Swish Analytics, Inc.’s acts of unfair competition and algorithmic price fixing that have decreased competition in the market for online sports betting.” They contend that licensing the same pricing technology to competing operators encourages sportsbooks to post similar odds, limiting meaningful differences for customers.
The cross-complaint also says OddsJam and OpticOdds help consumers compare prices by collecting sportsbook odds through methods that include API partnerships. According to the filing, their business benefits when sportsbooks compete by offering different prices rather than moving toward the same numbers.
Gambling.com Group, which acquired OddsJam and OpticOdds in December, issued a statement alongside the filing. Co-founder Charles Gillespie strongly criticized Swish’s lawsuit.
“The inexplicable and breathlessly hypocritical lawsuit from Swish Analytics against OddsJam and OpticOdds may go down as the single biggest own-goal in the history of the online gambling industry.”
Gillespie added: “We never paid much attention to Swish, until they forced us to with their lawsuit. That has now led us to pursue claims against them for violating the Cartwright Act, California’s premier anti-trust law, from their base in San Francisco. The lawsuit that they filed against us now poses an existential threat to their own business.”
He later said on social media that he had tried to resolve the disagreement before it reached this stage.
“Worth noting that I started with diplomacy to resolve this case. I flew to San Fran to meet the Swish CEO and hear him out. I tabled a serious proposal to fully address their concerns and resolve the case. I was promised a serious answer and got nothing for nearly a year.”
The cross-complaint asks the court to halt what the companies describe as unlawful conduct and award damages for losses they say resulted from Swish’s actions.
RotoWire separately announced that it had sued Swish Analytics, alleging the company unlawfully scraped and misappropriated proprietary sports information before using it in commercial products.
In a statement posted Wednesday, RotoWire said: “Last night, RotoWire filed a lawsuit against Swish Analytics for unlawfully scraping and misappropriating our data. RotoWire’s player injury data, in particular, is the lifeblood of player prop odds making.”
The publisher said it has spent decades building trusted sports data resources.
“For more than two decades, RotoWire has been one of the most trusted names in fantasy sports and sports data. Our projections, news and analytics are the product of millions of hours aggregating, verifying and producing the information the industry relies on every day.”
RotoWire also alleged: “For too long, some companies have ignored our requests to properly license the data we’ve worked hard to compile. Some of these companies, such as Swish Analytics, even publicly admit to using RotoWire data in their products.”
According to the , Swish operates products that “depend on the automated and unauthorized collection of fantasy sports news and information created by RotoWire and others.” RotoWire is seeking damages along with court orders intended to stop the alleged conduct.
The complaint points to claims of automated web scraping and references public comments from Swish executives about collecting sports information from multiple online sources. It also cites a job advertisement seeking engineers with experience in “web scraping.”
RotoWire further alleges Swish acknowledged using RotoWire information without authorization and declined a licensing proposal in 2025, responding that “we do all this internally at Swish.”
According to the complaint, RotoWire argues those actions deprived it of licensing revenue while allowing Swish to “free ride” on years of investment in creating time-sensitive sports information.
The company said in its social media thread: “Our complaint alleges that Swish Analytics unlawfully scrapes and misappropriates RotoWire’s proprietary data to help inform its algorithms and products. Swish Analytics has been unfairly profiting from our hard work, and we have sued to stop them.”
RotoWire added: “We take the integrity of our data and our platform seriously, and we intend to protect it.”
Three lawsuits now surround Swish Analytics
Swish’s original lawsuit continues to allege that OddsJam and OpticOdds improperly obtained and redistributed proprietary betting odds through unauthorized scraping and API access. The defendants continue to deny the allegations while advancing their own claims against Swish.
Meanwhile, RotoWire’s lawsuit focuses on whether Swish unlawfully collected and commercialized fantasy sports news and player information without authorization. The publisher is asking the court for damages and injunctive relief based on those allegations.
The claims made in each of the three cases remain disputed, and none has been proven in court. Swish Analytics has previously said the allegations against it lack merit while continuing to defend its own lawsuit against OddsJam and OpticOdds.
ReadWrite has reached out to Swish Analytics for comment.
Featured image: Swish Analytics via
The post appeared first on .
Federal prosecutors say the founder of an NFT startup collected more than $10 million from investors by promising to build a digital collectibles marketplace, then diverted much of that money to gambling, , luxury purchases and other personal expenses instead.
A federal grand jury in Manhattan charging Taj Tarsha, the founder and sole owner of Few and Far Limited, with securities fraud and wire fraud. Prosecutors contend the alleged misconduct stretched across several years and involved misleading investors about how company money was being used. Tarsha, 34, of Miami, was arrested on June 6, 2026, and the case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.
Prosecutors allege NFT startup founder used investor funds for gambling
According to the indictment, Tarsha began seeking investments in February 2022 through Simple Agreements for Future Tokens, or SAFTs, which promised investors FAR tokens at a later date. Prosecutors say investors were told the proceeds would finance development of Few and Far’s decentralized NFT marketplace and its cryptocurrency token. They allege the offering brought in more than $10 million through sales of 95 million FAR tokens to at least 67 investors.
“As alleged, Taj Tarsha raised millions of dollars from investors by promising that their investments would be used to build a marketplace for non-fungible tokens, but he instead breached their trust by stealing those funds for his own personal benefit,” Deputy United States Attorney Sean S. Buckley . “Investors are entitled to the truth when choosing to make an investment, and this Office and our law enforcement partners will hold business leaders responsible when they lie for their own gain.”
The indictment says Tarsha privately described the NFT market as a “bubble” while viewing it as an opportunity for profit. Prosecutors also allege he called the venture “the last [company] I have in me,” “the last juice I have to squeeze,” and a “magic ticket to a 10-30M exit” within 18 months.
Investigators say investor money began moving into Tarsha’s personal wallets within months. The indictment alleges he spent company funds on online gambling, cryptocurrency speculation and personal expenses. Messages cited by prosecutors say he admitted using company assets for “personal reasons,” including gambling, acknowledged the conduct was “unethical,” and said he did not want to “be held liable and pay a fine.”
Prosecutors also allege Tarsha paid himself a $360,000 annual salary and secretly approved $1.2 million in bonuses. They say he admitted he was making “way too much money given we’re over 6 months delayed on product and making virtually zero revenue,” yet wanted to “squeeze out a lot first for us.” He allegedly said another co-founder would “freak [] out” if the bonuses became known.
After an internal audit in June 2023, prosecutors say Tarsha falsely reassured investors while privately messaging his then-fiancée, “[O]nce we get ahold of the treasury we’ll have more fun with them,” later adding he planned to “take in $200K” and then “take in another $500k.” They say he soon sent her a link to a $350,000 luxury yacht.
Rather than continue building the platform, prosecutors allege he cut nearly all staff and told the remaining engineer “the main goal of the NFTs and collections we are displaying [on the website] is optics,” encouraging updates about features the company could build “even if we’re not planning to do it.” He also allegedly said he was “just playing a game” with investors who “do not understand crypto.”
The government says the FAR token launched in May 2024 before rapidly losing nearly all its value and eventually ceasing to trade. Prosecutors allege Tarsha kept using company money for speculative cryptocurrency purchases, a luxury Miami condominium, interior design services and his DJ hobby.
“Taj Tarsha is alleged to have concealed fraudulent conduct behind his crypto startup, using investor funds for personal benefit,” FBI Assistant Director in Charge James C. Barnacle, Jr. said. “Protecting the integrity of our financial markets is a priority, and the FBI remains steadfast in its commitment to conducting thorough and fact-driven investigations into potential financial offenses.”
If found guilty, he faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
Featured image: Canva
The post appeared first on .
A federally regulated prediction market operator is asking a federal judge to block New York from enforcing state gambling laws against its sports event contracts, arguing that Congress placed those markets under the exclusive authority of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Ludlow Exchange LLC, which operates as Novig, Wednesday (August 5) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The defendants include Attorney General Letitia James, New York State Gaming Commission Executive Director Robert Williams, Gaming Commission Chair Brian O’Dwyer and other commission members in their official capacities.
Novig says federal oversight overrides New York gambling laws
The case arrived only a day after the , allowing the company to launch a nationwide sports prediction market under a federal regulatory framework instead of pursuing state-by-state sportsbook licenses. Novig says that the structure gives users access across the US, greater liquidity, live trading, more payment options and additional compliance safeguards, while requiring participants to be at least 21 years old.
The complaint says New York has already targeted similar products through lawsuits involving Kalshi and Coinbase Financial Markets Inc.
“New York has moved aggressively against federally regulated event-contract trading within its borders,” the complaint states.
Novig officially received its CFTC designation on June 16 and says it began offering sports event contracts to New York customers the same day it filed suit. The company argues those products are federally regulated derivatives rather than wagers governed by state gambling laws.
“The event contracts Novig lists are a type of derivative instrument that is extensively regulated under federal law and that can be listed, traded, and settled only on federally registered exchanges,” the complaint says.
According to the filing, Congress granted the CFTC “exclusive jurisdiction” over those markets, preventing New York from applying its gambling and sports wagering laws to contracts traded on a designated exchange.
The lawsuit points to the state’s cease-and-desist action against Kalshi and later enforcement cases against Kalshi and Coinbase Financial Markets as evidence that Novig faces an immediate threat.
“Novig expects that New York will imminently bring an enforcement action against it along the same lines as the other lawsuits that Defendants have already brought against similarly situated parties,” the complaint states.
That dispute is already unfolding in another courtroom. Earlier this week, , prompting a state judge to deny the attorney general’s request for emergency relief as moot while jurisdiction is decided.
Novig says its exchange includes deposit and trading limits, self-exclusion tools, market surveillance, employee integrity training and screening for prohibited traders. The company also says cumulative trading volume has exceeded $6 billion and stresses its exchange model, where users trade directly with one another instead of betting against a bookmaker.
According to the filing, “Congress recognized the obvious point that a national market cannot function under fifty regulators,” and intended the CFTC to provide a single regulatory framework for federally designated exchanges.
“Novig must either risk exposing the company to significant civil (and potentially even criminal) liability or refrain from offering event contracts to New Yorkers altogether,” the complaint states.
The company wants the court to declare that federal law preempts New York’s gambling laws and quickly issue an injunction, arguing that “the specter of New York enforcement is imminent and existential to Novig’s business operations.”
Featured image: Novig / Canva
The post appeared first on .
New York state investigators have issued document subpoenas to Kalshi seeking records tied to sports-event contracts, including transactions involving people under the age of 21, according to copies of the subpoenas and information shared by legal analyst Daniel Wallach.
The subpoenas, directed to Kalshi Inc. and KalshiEX LLC by the New York State Gaming Commission, require the companies to turn over records connected to an investigation into Kalshi's operation as a platform for Sports Products. The documents request production as soon as possible and no later than August 14, 2026.
According to Wallach, the requests are limited to sports-event contracts and do not seek information about any other category of event contracts. He also said the subpoenas seek details of transactions involving persons "under the age of 21."
Wallach wrote, "New York issues document subpoenas to Kalshi seeking details of transactions involving sports-event contracts and persons 'under the age of 21.' Subpoenas do not seek details of any other category of event contracts, just sports. First government subpoena directed at Kalshi."
Subpoenas deepen New York case against Kalshi
The subpoenas cite Section 104(7) of the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law as the basis for the investigation. They also include broad definitions covering communications, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the New York State Gaming Commission and Kalshi's corporate structure, including affiliated entities, owners and controlling interests.
Wallach linked the subpoenas to Kalshi's recent procedural move in court.
"One reason why Kalshi quickly removed New York State’s civil enforcement lawsuit to federal court–it was served with subpoenas from state investigators seeking documents concerning its corporate structure, stock ownership and 'Sports Product' offerings no later than August 14th," Wallach wrote.
The investigation comes days after , alleging the company operates an unlicensed gambling business by offering contracts tied to sports, elections and other events without a state gaming license. Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James argue the contracts violate New York gambling laws and have asked the court to permanently block the platform, requiring restitution, disgorgement of alleged profits, customer accounting and civil penalties.
"Kalshi has chosen to ignore New York's gaming laws, which exist to protect consumers, prevent problematic gambling, deliver funding for critical public services, and ensure that every company plays by the same rules," Hochul said in a .
"New York's gambling laws protect children from underage betting and help combat gambling addiction," James said. "No matter what they call themselves, prediction markets like Kalshi are gambling platforms, plain and simple. By ignoring our laws, Kalshi is running an illegal operation and harming New Yorkers in the process. We are taking them to court to uphold our laws and protect New Yorkers."
Kalshi removed the case to federal court on July 31. A New York judge later ruled the state's request for , leaving the federal court to decide the next steps while the Gaming Commission's investigation continues.
Featured image: Kalshi / Canva
The post appeared first on .
A prediction market can sound like a financial tool built for people trying to forecast the future. Users buy contracts tied to an outcome: Will the Federal Reserve cut interest rates? How hot will it get in New York? Will a particular team win a championship?
But put a point spread, a money line or a player proposition on the screen, tribal gaming leaders told senators this week, and the distinction between a "prediction" and a bet becomes much harder to see.
On Tuesday (August 4), the Senate Indian Affairs Committee examined the proliferation of . Tribal leaders, gaming regulators, a state official and a public-health advocate argued that sports contracts offered through prediction markets are effectively sports betting — but without many of the state and tribal rules that ordinarily govern gambling.
The debate raises questions about who gets to regulate gambling, what happens to the tribal-state gaming system Congress established decades ago, and what protections consumers receive when something that looks like a bet is legally treated as a financial instrument.
And, for tribal governments, the stakes are especially high.
Prediction markets aren't a novelty anymore
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, chair of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, acknowledged that she initially viewed prediction markets as something of a novelty.
But this appeared to change as the industry grew. Murkowski said millions of Americans are now using prediction markets, with one leading platform reporting more than five million monthly active users. The range of contracts has expanded dramatically, covering everything from Federal Reserve decisions to the weather.
When you wager something of value on the outcome of a sporting event, it's sports wagering. Relabeling the wager as an event contract or a prediction market or a derivative does not change what it is. – Jamie Hummingbird, National Tribal Gaming Commissioners & Regulators Chairman
And now, it seems that sports contracts have created the biggest legal collision.
Many tribes and states contend that contracts based on sporting events amount to sports betting and therefore fall under existing gaming laws. Prediction-market platforms and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, by contrast, have treated the products as federally regulated financial instruments under commodities law. Courts around the country are now considering where the legal boundary lies.
Sen. Brian Schatz put the issue in much simpler terms.
He quoted a federal judge considering prediction-market litigation: "It looks like gambling to me."
For consumers, Schatz argued, the distinction can be difficult to see. Someone who wants to put money on the Philadelphia 76ers winning an NBA championship can use a conventional sportsbook or a prediction-market app.
"The consumer experience is exactly the same," Schatz said.
This became a recurring theme throughout the roundtable: What matters more — the legal label attached to a transaction, or what the customer is actually doing?
Same wager, different rules
Jamie Hummingbird, chairman of the National Tribal Gaming Commissioners & Regulators, told the committee, "When you wager something of value on the outcome of a sporting event, it’s sports wagering," calling the product an event contract, prediction market or derivative, he said, does not change its basic nature.
Indian gaming operates within a regulatory structure that took decades to build.
Tribal nations are stakeholders in tribal gaming. We are not shareholders. – Mark Macarro, National Congress of American Indians President
Congress enacted the , or IGRA, in 1988, establishing a framework involving tribal sovereignty, federal oversight and, for Class III gaming, agreements negotiated between tribes and states. Hummingbird described that framework as a federal Indian-law "success story," supported by tribal gaming commissions that oversee licensing, audits, game integrity, responsible gaming, patron protections and other requirements.
Tehassi Hill, vice chairman of the Indian Gaming Association and chairman of the Oneida Nation, said tribes spend more than $450 million each year regulating gambling and employ more than 6,000 regulators. Tribal gaming operations also maintain age restrictions and support problem-gambling programs including treatment, education, self-exclusion and employee training, he said.
Hill argued that prediction markets are offering familiar sportsbook products — "money lines, totals, parlays, prop bets" — while operating outside that regulatory structure.
"They claim to be innovators, but they have invented nothing," Hill said.
Casino revenue keeps tribal governments running
The argument from tribal leaders was that tribal gaming revenue plays a fundamentally different role from ordinary corporate profit.
Hill told senators that gaming revenue funds health care, education, housing for elders, public safety and infrastructure. Tribal gaming also supported more than 682,000 jobs in 2025, he said, many of them in rural communities.
Murkowski framed the concern in similar terms. in fiscal 2025, she said, while the broader economic output of Indian gaming was estimated at approximately $110 billion, including jobs, wages and activity in supporting industries. A major disruption to that industry, she warned, could therefore reach far beyond casino floors.
Mark Macarro, president of the National Congress of American Indians and chairman of the Pechanga Band of Indians, put it this way: "Tribal nations are stakeholders in tribal gaming. We are not shareholders."
Gaming revenue, he said, is the "financial backbone" of government services in many tribal communities. If revenue moves to prediction-market operators that do not have the same compact, licensing and revenue-sharing obligations, tribes argue that the consequences will show up in public budgets.
Schatz said some tribal councils are already confronting those choices.
He described tribal leaders considering potential cuts to "public safety, education, infrastructure" and warned that Congress could not easily replace substantial losses in tribal gaming revenue through federal appropriations.
Exactly how much revenue is being lost, however, remains unsettled.
Hill said the Indian Gaming Association is working to analyze national data, although much of the information needed is proprietary and would have to be supplied by individual tribes. He pointed to work underway among Wisconsin tribes and the state to analyze that market.
Macarro also cautioned against relying on aggregate tribal gaming growth to conclude that prediction markets are having little effect. Overall revenue can rise because new gaming facilities open, he said, even while existing properties lose business. A more meaningful comparison would examine the same facilities year over year.
Financial rules weren't built to regulate gambling
Tribal governments are not alone in challenging the expansion.
Ohio Solicitor General Mathura Sridharan told senators that her state became involved in the issue in early 2025, when prediction-market platforms began offering sports bets through their trading platforms. Ohio has since participated in litigation and led a .
She focused on the different purposes of financial and gambling regulation.
Derivatives markets, she said, traditionally help businesses hedge risks, discover prices and allocate capital. Sports betting presents a different set of concerns.
"A wager on whether the Ohio State covers the spread is not managing commercial risk or facilitating price discovery," Sridharan said.
States therefore regulate gambling with questions that commodities law was not designed primarily to answer: are vulnerable people being protected? Are operators encouraging responsible gambling? Are sports being protected against corruption?
State laws can require gambling companies to obtain licenses, verify bettors’ ages, report suspicious activity, operate responsible-gaming programs and offer voluntary self-exclusion. Prediction markets, Sridharan argued, can bypass many of those protections.
What if bettors think they're investors?
Then Harry Levant shifted the conversation away from statutes, agencies and jurisdiction.
Levant, director of gambling policy at the Public Health Advocacy Institute, introduced himself as a clinician who treats gambling addiction, as well as a recovering gambling addict.
He told senators that he made his last bet on April 20, 2014, and survived a suicide attempt that night. The following year, after a gambling addiction that he said devastated his career and hurt his clients and family, the longtime lawyer stood in a Philadelphia courtroom as a disbarred attorney and criminal defendant and pleaded guilty to 13 financial felonies.
His central message to Congress was: "Prevention of harm is the single best form of treatment."
Levant stressed that he does not favor prohibiting sports gambling altogether. He supports regulated legalization. His concern is the way modern gambling products can be delivered constantly through smartphones, combining sports, technology and rapid-fire wagering in ways that can intensify risk.
Prediction markets add another complication. Some people may not realize they are gambling.
Levant said six clients in his recovery group had returned to gambling through prediction markets during the previous three months.
Why?
"Because they thought they were making investments," he told senators.
Congress now has to draw the line
There was broad agreement among the roundtable participants that Congress should act, although there was less agreement about exactly which legislative vehicle should carry that response.
Hill urged lawmakers to advance legislation explicitly addressing prediction markets and to protect state and tribal gambling laws. Macarro called for enforcement of existing law and noted that four of the CFTC’s five commission seats were vacant. Hummingbird asked for a clear regulatory framework. Sridharan called for legislation making clear that financial derivatives law does not displace state and tribal gaming law.
Some senators discussed adding language to pending legislation to make clear that the Commodity Exchange Act does not preempt IGRA, tribal-state gaming compacts or tribal sovereignty. Others cautioned against attaching the prediction-market fight to legislation primarily focused on other subjects.
The conversation ultimately kept returning to a deceptively basic question.
When someone opens an app, chooses a team, puts money on an uncertain sporting outcome and gets paid if that prediction is right, what exactly are they doing?
Prediction-market operators may describe that transaction using the language of contracts and financial markets. Tribal gaming officials, state regulators and public-health advocates at the roundtable used another word.
A bet.
And their message to Congress was that the answer will determine far more than what these products are called. It will determine who regulates them, which consumer protections apply, whether states and tribes can enforce their own gaming laws, and whether a regulatory system built over decades can be bypassed by changing the terminology on a smartphone screen.
Hummingbird warned, the current fight may still be relatively small because prediction markets have only recently begun gaining momentum. But waiting, he argued, could make the problem much harder to contain.
"We have the ability now to administer that one ounce of prevention," he said. "But it must be done, and it must be done pretty quickly."
Featured image: C-SPAN
The post appeared first on .