Czech Republic Orders ISPs to Block Polymarket After Gambling Ban

The Czech Ministry of Finance has added Polymarket to its list of unauthorized online gambling websites, triggering mandatory blocking by internet service providers (ISPs). The move brings another European jurisdiction into the growing crackdown on prediction markets that regulators argue operate without the right licenses.

According to the ministry, Polymarket’s website was included under the Czech Gambling Act, which bars operators from offering unlicensed online gambling services to people in the country. ISPs are required to block the listed site within 15 days of the blacklist publication, as described in the ministry’s published data and the relevant law.

Key takeaways

• The Czech Ministry of Finance has formally blacklisted Polymarket under the Gambling Act and ordered ISP blocking within 15 days of listing.
• Regulators across Europe are increasingly scrutinizing prediction-market contracts, particularly when they resemble binary options.
• ESMA warned that marketing labels like “event contracts” may not change the legal assessment if a product meets the definition of a financial instrument.
• Similar restrictions have emerged beyond Europe, including actions tied to gambling concerns in other jurisdictions and state-level disputes in the US.

How the Czech blacklist affects access

In a notice published by the Czech Ministry of Finance, Polymarket was added to the publicly available list of unauthorized internet gambling websites. The ministry’s classification is tied to the country’s Gambling Act framework, under which offering online gambling to Czech users without authorization is prohibited.

The practical effect is straightforward: once a domain is included on the ministry’s blacklist, ISPs must block access. The ministry’s materials point to the legal obligation to implement such blocks within 15 days after the name is published.

For Polymarket, which operates as a prediction market where users trade contracts tied to the outcomes of future events, this kind of restriction can directly limit retail participation from affected networks, even if the platform remains accessible in other countries.

Why prediction markets keep running into regulation

The Czech action follows a broader regulatory pattern. Regulators in multiple jurisdictions argue that some prediction-market contracts effectively function as gambling products—or, in certain cases, fall within existing financial market rules—depending on how the contracts behave.

Earlier this year, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) issued guidance warning that many prediction market contracts could already be captured by restrictions on binary options under EU rules. ESMA emphasized that firms cannot sidestep regulatory obligations merely by branding binary-style products as “event contracts” instead of derivatives.

ESMA’s point was technical but consequential: whether a contract is treated as a financial instrument depends on its characteristics rather than its marketing label. ESMA further noted that companies offering qualifying contracts to retail investors may already face national restrictions reflecting the EU’s 2018 ban on binary options, while offerings to professional clients may require authorization under MiFID II (the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive).

For market participants, the implication is that compliance risk does not hinge on naming conventions. Platforms may need to evaluate contract structures—such as how payouts are determined, how the products are offered, and the target investor base—because regulators are increasingly treating substance as the deciding factor.

EU scrutiny is part of a wider global trend

While EU authorities have been vocal about the potential overlap between prediction-market contracts and regulated financial products, the issue is not limited to Europe. Cointelegraph previously reported that regulators in several other countries have restricted access to Polymarket citing gambling-related concerns.

In the Asia-Pacific region, similar actions have been described in Australia, Indonesia, and Singapore. Elsewhere, the core debate has also played out in the United States, where Polymarket and rival platform Kalshi have faced regulatory challenges at the state level over whether their event contracts are illegal gambling.

At the same time, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has maintained that such products fall under its exclusive jurisdiction as federally regulated derivatives. This disagreement has contributed to a patchwork environment, including conflicting court outcomes, and has fueled calls for clearer congressional guidance on whether sports and political event contracts should be treated as gambling or handled as derivatives under federal frameworks.

The result for users is uneven market access: depending on where they live and how regulators classify the same underlying contract mechanics, the same platform can be permitted, restricted, or blocked.

What to watch next

With the Czech blacklist now active and ESMA continuing to frame the issue around contract characteristics, investors and users should expect more compliance-driven changes across jurisdictions—either through licensing, product redesign, or restricted access. The key uncertainty remains how quickly courts and regulators converge on a consistent legal classification for prediction-market contracts that sit between gambling and financial derivatives.

For Polymarket specifically, the immediate question is whether it will take steps to operate within Czech requirements or adjust its distribution approach to mitigate access blocks. More broadly, market watchers should monitor how EU guidance translates into enforcement actions and whether similar measures spread through additional member states.