TheCorporateCounsel.net

Companies have started addressing prediction markets in their corporate policies to manage the risk of employees trading on prediction markets on the basis of nonpublic information. (See Dave’s article for the July-August 2026 issue of The Corporate Counsel, “Prediction Markets: What Should Companies Do Now?”) Because prediction markets often do not involve “securities,” this may not be as simple as adding a line to your insider trading policy.

While there may not be a one-size-fits-all solution because each company will have to consider its existing policies to determine whether and how to revise them to reflect prediction market insider trading risk, data on what other public companies are doing can be helpful to have in your back pocket. To that end, this O’Melveny quarterly newsletter shares how companies have addressed prediction markets in their policies this year.

In 2026 through September 2, 2026, 54 companies (including 12 large companies) updated their publicly available codes of conduct and 30 companies (including 12 large companies) updated their insider trading policies to include prediction markets language.

Companies typically took a more restrictive approach to prediction markets than that which it applied to securities transactions generally, although this was more common in codes of conduct (81% of companies with prediction markets language in their codes of conduct) than in insider trading policies (69% of companies with prediction markets language in their insider trading policies).

– Prohibition on engaging in any prediction market transaction involving the company. Approximately 24% of companies that included prediction markets language in their codes of conduct restricted employees from engaging in any prediction market transaction involving the company. A similar number of companies included that prohibition in their updated insider trading policies, but due to the smaller number of filed policies containing prediction markets language, this constituted 41% of insider trading policies.

– Application of a lower standard for restricting participation in prediction markets. Approximately 56% of companies that included prediction markets language in their codes of conduct restricted participation based on a lower standard of information (possession of confidential or nonpublic information, rather than material nonpublic information), while 14% of companies that included prediction-markets language in their insider trading policies applied this lower standard. One company took a different approach in its insider trading policy and prohibited trading by individuals in event contracts where they had the ability to affect the outcome of the contract.

Of the 54 companies addressing event contracts in their publicly available codes of conduct, nearly half (46%, or 25 companies) included language regarding prediction markets in the section of their codes of conduct covering insider trading, while one-third of companies (33%, or 18 companies) included the language in the section of their codes of conduct covering confidentiality obligations. A significant minority of companies (15%, or 8 companies) included language regarding event contracts as a standalone section of their code of conduct. Companies also included prediction market language in the sections of their codes of conduct covering conflicts of interest (9%) or compliance with laws (4%).

Meanwhile, more than three-quarters of companies (76%, or 22 companies) that addressed prediction markets in their insider trading policies described trading in event contracts as distinct from trading in securities, often acknowledging that such trading may not be covered by traditional securities restrictions. Many of these companies included restrictions on trading in event contracts in the same section as other prohibited transactions, such as hedging and pledging of securities or entering into derivatives contracts.

The report emphasizes that this is an emerging and evolving risk area, so companies should monitor developments and may want to adjust their practices in response.

– Meredith Ervine