France has escalated its enforcement action against Polymarket from transaction-level geoblocking to a full internet-access block. The case illustrates the central regulatory problem facing prediction markets in Europe: depending on the underlying event and product structure, the same contract may fall within gambling law, MiFID II, MiCA—or several regulatory perimeters simultaneously.
French regulator orders ISP block
On 16 July 2026, the president of France’s gambling regulator, the Autorité Nationale des Jeux (ANJ), ordered French internet service providers to block access to Polymarket. The regulator said the platform was promoting an illegal gambling offering to French consumers.
The measure goes significantly further than the restrictions introduced after the ANJ first intervened in November 2024. At that stage, Polymarket’s operator, identified by the ANJ as Adventure One QSS Inc., implemented geoblocking intended to prevent financial transactions from France. According to the regulator, however, users continued to circumvent those controls while the website and its real-time odds remained publicly accessible.
The ANJ said Polymarket recorded approximately 578,751 visits and 205,057 unique French visitors in June 2026. It considered the visible display and dissemination of event odds to constitute promotion of an unauthorised gambling service. Under French law, advertising an illegal gambling site—or publicly distributing its odds for promotional purposes—may constitute a criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to €100,000.
Why France considers prediction markets gambling
The French position is based on economic substance rather than terminology.
Users pay money or crypto assets, select a future uncertain outcome and receive a payout depending on whether that outcome occurs. Calling the product an “event contract,” “share,” “market position” or “information market” does not necessarily change its gambling characteristics.
France permits only specific forms of licensed online gambling, principally regulated sports betting, horse-race betting and poker. Broad markets covering elections, political appointments, wars, weather events or other real-world developments do not fit comfortably within that authorised framework.
The ANJ has also highlighted several consumer-protection and integrity risks:
- continuous 24-hour availability;
- potentially unlimited betting exposure;
- inadequate age and identity controls;
- addictive trading-style interfaces;
- insider-information risks;
- incentives to manipulate the underlying event.
The regulator referred specifically to allegations that weather-monitoring equipment may have been manipulated in connection with Polymarket weather contracts. A cybercrime investigation was reportedly opened by the Paris prosecutor’s office in May 2026.
ESMA opens the second regulatory front
Only two weeks before the French block, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published an important statement on prediction markets and event contracts.
ESMA confirmed that event contracts with a binary outcome—fixed payout or no payout—may qualify as derivative financial instruments under MiFID II when the underlying falls within Annex I, Section C(4)–(10) of MiFID II. Relevant underlyings may include securities, currencies, commodities, interest rates, financial indices, climatic variables and official economic statistics.
Where an event contract qualifies as a financial instrument:
- providing investment services in relation to it requires a MiFID II authorisation; and
- marketing, distributing or selling the binary contract to retail clients is generally prohibited under the permanent national product-intervention measures adopted across the EU.
ESMA expressly warned that the commercial label used by a platform is irrelevant. Renaming a binary option an “event contract,” “prediction token” or “market share” does not change its legal character. ESMA also stated that coupons, rewards or interest on deposited funds do not remove the binary nature of the product.
Distribution to professional or other non-retail clients is not automatically free from regulation: MiFID II authorisation remains necessary where the contract is a financial instrument.
The European three-perimeter problem
Prediction-market operators therefore face at least three potential regulatory classifications.
1. National gambling law
Contracts linked to elections, sporting events, political developments, entertainment or geopolitical outcomes may fall outside MiFID II but still constitute gambling under national law.
There is no harmonised EU gambling licence. Member States remain largely autonomous in organising and restricting gambling services, subject to general EU treaty principles. A licence or corporate registration in one jurisdiction therefore does not produce an EU gambling passport.
2. MiFID II and binary-option restrictions
Contracts linked to financial or specified economic underlyings may be derivatives. The operator may then be running an unauthorised investment service or trading venue, while retail distribution may additionally breach national binary-option prohibitions.
This is particularly relevant for markets such as:
- whether Bitcoin exceeds a specified price;
- whether an equity index closes above a threshold;
- whether an interest-rate decision occurs;
- whether inflation reaches a defined level;
- whether a commodity or currency moves above a stated price;
- certain weather or official-statistics contracts.
3. MiCA
ESMA acknowledged that tokenised event contracts that are not financial instruments may potentially qualify as crypto-assets under MiCA.
However, MiCA is not a regulatory safe harbour. A MiCA authorisation does not override national gambling prohibitions, and MiCA does not apply where the token is already a MiFID II financial instrument. Depending on the product, MiCA may regulate the crypto layer while gambling or financial-services law regulates the underlying economic activity.
Europe is moving toward coordinated enforcement
The French action is not isolated. The ANJ lists Germany, Belgium, Romania, Switzerland, Poland, the Netherlands, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Ukraine and the Czech Republic among jurisdictions that have restricted or blocked prediction-market platforms.
Spain also moved against Polymarket and Kalshi in May 2026, while gambling regulators in several European countries have announced closer cooperation against unlicensed prediction markets.
Europe therefore appears to be developing a dual enforcement model:
- national gambling regulators block politically, socially or sports-related markets as illegal betting; and
- securities regulators capture financially referenced event contracts as derivatives and potentially prohibited binary options.
FinTelegram compliance assessment
The French ISP block marks a material escalation. Polymarket can no longer rely on a distinction between allowing users to view markets and allowing them to transact. The ANJ considers the visible publication of odds itself capable of promoting an illegal gambling offering.
For prediction-market platforms, the key compliance mistake would be to conduct a single platform-wide classification. Each market may require an individual analysis of:
- the underlying event;
- the payout structure;
- whether consideration is placed at risk;
- whether the contract is transferable or tradeable;
- the identity of the counterparty or market operator;
- the settlement asset;
- the target customer category;
- the customer’s location;
- the applicable gambling, MiFID II and MiCA rules.
The same platform may consequently contain:
- illegal gambling products;
- MiFID II financial instruments;
- retail-prohibited binary options;
- MiCA-regulated crypto-assets;
- and products falling into overlapping regulatory categories.
Key takeaway
Europe is not currently developing a permissive prediction-market passport comparable to the emerging US derivatives model. It is applying existing gambling, financial-services and crypto rules cumulatively.
For Polymarket and comparable operators, the European regulatory message is becoming increasingly clear:
Decentralised settlement, tokenisation and trading-style interfaces do not neutralise the underlying gambling or derivatives character of an event contract.
The French block should therefore be understood not as an isolated national action, but as part of a broader European perimeter-enforcement campaign against prediction markets operating without gambling or financial-services authorisation.
