France’s gambling regulator, l’Autorité Nationale des Jeux (ANJ), has directed domestic internet service providers to block access to the blockchain-based prediction market Polymarket. The enforcement action stems from a compliance investigation that determined the platform operates as an unlicensed betting service under French law. DNS-level restrictions will be imposed by telecom operators, effectively cutting off domestic users from the platform. It marks one of the most concrete regulatory moves against decentralised prediction markets in a major European jurisdiction.
What the ANJ’s Blocking Order Means for Prediction Markets in Europe
This is not a warning letter or a preliminary inquiry. The ANJ has moved directly to infrastructure-level enforcement, compelling ISPs to act rather than relying on Polymarket to voluntarily withdraw from the French market. That distinction matters, because it signals a regulatory posture that treats decentralised platforms the same way it would treat any offshore sportsbook operating without a licence.
- Legal basis is clear-cut: The ANJ invoked the French Internal Security Code, classifying financially incentivised wagering on public outcomes as gambling, regardless of the underlying technology.
- DNS-level blocking sets a precedent for how EU member states might handle prediction markets that resist traditional licensing frameworks.
- Polymarket’s decentralised architecture did not shield it from enforcement; the regulator targeted access points rather than the protocol itself.
- No licence application appears to have been filed. The platform’s operational model, built on crypto-native infrastructure, arguably sits outside the scope of existing French licensing categories.
- Other European regulators are watching. The ANJ’s approach could become a template for jurisdictions still formulating their stance on prediction market legality.
Why DNS Blocking, and Why Now?
Polymarket gained significant public visibility during the 2024 U.S. presidential election cycle, when its prediction contracts attracted millions in trading volume and widespread media attention. That visibility, it turns out, also drew regulatory scrutiny across borders. French authorities had been monitoring the platform’s accessibility to domestic users for months before issuing the formal order.
DNS-level blocking is a blunt instrument. It prevents standard web browsers from resolving the platform’s domain, but technically literate users can circumvent it through VPNs or alternative DNS resolvers. Still, the ANJ’s choice reflects a pragmatic calculation: the goal is not to make access impossible for every user, but to remove the platform from casual reach and establish a legal marker that Polymarket is operating outside French law.
The regulator’s framing is worth parsing carefully. By classifying prediction market contracts as “financially incentivised wagering on random public outcomes,” the ANJ drew a direct line between what Polymarket’s event-based trading contracts offer and what traditional bookmakers do. Whether that framing holds up under broader EU scrutiny (a distinction regulators have been slow to harmonise) remains an open question.
Decentralisation Does Not Equal Immunity
One of the more striking aspects of this enforcement action is what it reveals about the limits of decentralisation as a regulatory shield. Polymarket operates on blockchain infrastructure, with smart contracts settling outcomes without a centralised intermediary. But the ANJ sidestepped the protocol entirely. Instead of attempting to regulate the smart contracts or pursue the platform’s operators directly, it targeted the access layer.
This approach mirrors tactics used against unlicensed online casinos and piracy sites across Europe. And it works, at least on paper, because ISPs are domestically regulated entities with clear compliance obligations. The burden shifts from chasing offshore operators to leveraging existing telecom infrastructure.
Whether Polymarket responds with geo-blocking measures of its own, or simply accepts the French market as foreclosed, is unclear. The platform has not issued a public statement addressing the ANJ’s order.
Broader Regulatory Landscape: A Patchwork Taking Shape
France is not the first jurisdiction to push back against prediction markets, but the specificity and speed of the ANJ’s action stand out. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has its own complicated history with Polymarket, having settled with the platform in 2022 over operating an unregistered derivatives exchange. That settlement resulted in a $1.4 million penalty and a temporary withdrawal from U.S. markets.
Across the EU, the regulatory picture remains fragmented. Some member states have yet to classify prediction markets at all. Others are watching the ANJ’s move to gauge whether similar enforcement is politically and legally viable within their own frameworks. The Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), which took full effect in late 2024, does not explicitly address prediction markets, leaving a gap that national regulators are filling on their own terms.
| Jurisdiction | Regulatory Status of Prediction Markets | Key Action |
|---|---|---|
| France (ANJ) | Classified as unauthorised gambling | ISP blocking order issued |
| United States (CFTC) | Treated as unregistered derivatives | $1.4M settlement in 2022; ongoing regulatory debate |
| United Kingdom | Under review by the Gambling Commission | No formal enforcement action yet |
| EU-wide (MiCA) | Not explicitly addressed | National regulators filling the gap individually |
What Operators and Investors Should Be Thinking About
For platforms operating in the prediction market space, the ANJ’s decision carries a clear message: regulatory ambiguity is not the same as regulatory permission. Operators who assume that decentralised architecture or crypto-native settlement mechanisms place them beyond the reach of national gambling authorities are miscalculating the risk.
Investors in prediction market protocols should also recalibrate. The addressable market for these platforms shrinks each time a major jurisdiction moves to block access. And unlike enforcement actions that target individuals or corporate entities, ISP-level blocking is difficult to challenge legally from outside the jurisdiction. The platform would need to engage directly with French administrative courts to contest the order.
Even so, the demand for prediction markets is unlikely to disappear. The question is whether that demand gets channelled through licensed, regulated platforms or continues to flow through decentralised protocols that operate in a perpetual grey zone. France has made its position unambiguous. The rest of Europe has not.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Polymarket banned in France?
The ANJ has ordered ISPs to block access to Polymarket within France, effectively treating it as an unauthorised gambling platform. Users may still access it through VPNs, but doing so does not change the platform’s legal status under French law.
Can other EU countries follow France’s approach?
They can, and some likely will. Each EU member state retains authority over gambling regulation within its borders. The ANJ’s action provides a procedural blueprint, though political appetite for enforcement varies considerably across the bloc.
Does MiCA regulate prediction markets?
Not directly. MiCA focuses on crypto-asset issuance, trading, and custody. Prediction markets fall into a regulatory gap between financial derivatives and gambling, which is precisely why national authorities like the ANJ are stepping in with their own classifications.
What legal options does Polymarket have?
Polymarket could challenge the blocking order before French administrative courts or apply for a gambling licence, though its current operational model would likely require significant restructuring to meet French licensing requirements. The platform has not publicly indicated which path, if any, it intends to pursue.
