AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, relative to criminal offenses against property.
Summary
SB1992 creates a new criminal offense in Tennessee law aimed at conduct involving prediction markets. Under the bill, a person commits an offense if, for the purpose of obtaining a pecuniary benefit, they engage in conduct intended to influence whether a future event occurs or does not occur while they, or someone acting in active concert with them, hold a contract on a prediction market that would pay out based on that event. In practical terms, the bill targets attempts to manipulate event outcomes when the person has a financial stake in the settlement of a prediction-market contract.
The bill defines a prediction market as a marketplace or exchange where people trade contracts tied to the occurrence or nonoccurrence of specified future events. A violation is classified as a Class E felony. The act takes effect July 1, 2026, and amends Title 39, Chapter 14, Part 1 of the Tennessee Code Annotated, which governs property-related criminal offenses.
Impact
SB1992 adds a new felony offense to Tennessee’s criminal code and expands the state’s property-crime provisions to cover prediction-market manipulation. It creates potential criminal liability for individuals who try to affect an event’s outcome while financially positioned to profit from a contract tied to that event, and it may also reach coordinated conduct by others acting in concert. The law will affect participants in prediction markets, related intermediaries, and prosecutors enforcing fraud- or manipulation-related offenses under Title 39.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received strong support throughout the legislative process. It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously, then cleared the floor with only one nay vote on third consideration, and ultimately passed the House unanimously on regular calendar passage. The voting pattern suggests broad bipartisan agreement that the conduct addressed by the bill should be criminalized.
Contention
There is little evidence of significant controversy in the available record. The main policy issue implicit in the bill is how broadly the new offense may reach conduct intended to influence an event when a person has a financial interest in a prediction-market contract. Potential concerns could include proof of intent, the scope of “active concert,” and whether ordinary advocacy or lawful conduct could ever be implicated, but no recorded committee debate or organized opposition is provided in the materials.