FCA talks leave Polymarket and Kalshi short of a UK route

The UK's Financial Conduct Authority has been engaging with prediction-market operators as Polymarket and Kalshi weigh entry into the British market, according to a report by Financial News on 6 October 2026. The talks matter to any UK retail customer who might eventually be offered a wager on financial, political or sporting outcomes through these platforms, because two separate regulatory regimes stand between a conversation with the FCA and a lawful retail product. Engagement with a regulator is not approval, and the rules now in force leave real gaps for either operator to close before any UK launch could proceed.

Financial News's accessible headline and standfirst establish that talks have taken place. The full report sits behind a paywall, so the detail of what was discussed, and whether both named companies took part directly, is not independently confirmed from the material reviewed for this article. Casino.com, an affiliate-linked gambling news site, reported separately that FCA executive director for markets Simon Walls made remarks confirming the regulator's engagement and interest in the operators' UK plans, speaking at the regulator's annual public meeting on 6 October 2026. Casino.com attributes this account to Financial News rather than to a transcript or recording, so it should be read as a second-hand paraphrase rather than a verified quotation.

The regulatory route for either company depends entirely on what it builds and where that product sits across two different legal frameworks.

What a prediction contract pays out

A prediction-market contract typically resolves on a binary outcome: yes or no, over or under, a named winner or not. The FCA's description of binary options, set out when it banned their retail sale, notes that these products carry a predetermined payout structure. If the outcome goes against the customer, the usual result is the loss of the full amount staked, not a partial loss scaled to how wrong the prediction was. The FCA cited both this payout structure and poor conduct by providers as reasons for its 2019 intervention. Whatever a platform calls its product, a UK customer weighing one of these contracts should understand that the money put down can be lost in full.

The ban that still applies to financial contracts

Since 2 April 2019, the FCA's Handbook has prohibited the marketing, distribution and sale of relevant binary options and other fixed-outcome derivative contracts to retail clients in the UK. The rule sits in the Conduct of Business Sourcebook, known as COBS, at COBS 22.4 of the Handbook, specifically COBS 22.4.4R, and it followed the FCA's March 2019 policy statement, PS19/11. That statement explains that the UK ban went further than the European Securities and Markets Authority's earlier temporary EU-wide restriction, which began on 2 July 2018: the FCA's version is permanent and also covers binary options packaged as tradeable securities, not only those sold as standalone contracts. At the time, the FCA estimated the ban could save retail consumers up to £17m a year, a 2019 forecast rather than a measured outcome, and not a current market-size figure. One secondary source, The Paypers, presents a different savings figure of around €19.5m a year; the original FCA announcement gives the figure in sterling, and no exchange-rate basis for the euro conversion was established, so this article uses the FCA's own £17m figure.

The FCA's perimeter report sets out the boundary of the activities the regulator oversees. Its 2026 edition, first published 26 March 2026 and last updated 16 July 2026, states that the financial prediction-market products the regulator has examined are binary options and remain subject to this retail prohibition. That is the FCA's assessment of the products it has seen to date; it is not a ruling that covers every possible future contract design. A record of a 30 April 2026 meeting between HM Treasury and the FCA, published by Treasury on 27 July 2026, repeats this position and notes that the FCA will consider whether further work on access to prediction products, or clarification of where its perimeter sits, is needed. That is a statement of intent to keep looking at the question, not a commitment to relax the ban.

Where gambling regulation takes over

Not every prediction contract is a financial instrument. The FCA's perimeter report places contracts referencing financial outcomes, and certain climatic events, inside its own regulatory boundary. Sitting inside that boundary is a question of regulatory scope rather than of permission: the retail prohibition bites only where a contract is a relevant binary or other fixed-outcome derivative within the scope of COBS 22.4, and the FCA's published assessment is that the financial prediction products it has examined meet that description. Contracts on sporting or political outcomes fall instead within the Gambling Commission's remit, under separate gambling legislation that applies in Great Britain.

The Gambling Commission set out its position in a statement published 4 February 2026, attributed to its director of strategy, Brad Enright. The Commission said current prediction-market models appear comparable to betting exchanges and, depending on the business model, would appear to require betting intermediary licensing to operate lawfully in Great Britain. It also said that unlicensed operators should not target or transact with consumers in Great Britain, and warned of criminal offences associated with operating without the appropriate licence. That warning is directed at operators, not at individual consumers who might access a platform. The Commission's statement concerns Great Britain specifically; no separate evidence on the position in Northern Ireland was available for this article, so that distinction should not be assumed away.

Why talks are not a green light

A conversation with the FCA does not, by itself, create a lawful route to UK retail customers. If a proposed product references a financial outcome and functions as a binary option, it remains caught by the retail prohibition regardless of what the FCA has discussed with the operator. If a product references a sporting or political outcome instead, it falls to the Gambling Commission, where the appropriate licence, most likely a betting intermediary licence depending on the business model, would need to be obtained before UK customers in Great Britain could be lawfully offered the product. A single operator wanting to offer both types of market would need to satisfy both regimes for the relevant parts of its offering.

A Financial News image caption speculates that the retail ban could be loosened. The primary regulatory material supports only a continuing prohibition alongside a stated willingness to consider further work, not a prediction that the rule will change.

No source reviewed establishes Financial Services Compensation Scheme or Financial Ombudsman Service protection for any prediction-market product, and the FCA's engagement with these companies should not be read as implying that such cover exists.

What to watch

The questions that would settle whether either company can offer products to UK retail customers are specific and checkable: has Polymarket or Kalshi applied for or received a licence from the Gambling Commission; has the FCA published any consultation or rule change affecting the binary-options perimeter; and what exact contract terms, customer categories and legal entities would any UK offering use. The sources reviewed for this article answer none of them, which is a gap in the available evidence rather than confirmation that no application, permission or proposed product design exists. Readers wanting the primary detail, rather than secondary reporting of private talks, should follow the FCA's Handbook entry on the binary-options prohibition (opens in a new tab), the FCA's perimeter report (opens in a new tab), and the Gambling Commission's published position on prediction markets (opens in a new tab), all of which are updated directly by the regulators concerned.