SB4035, the “DEATH BETS Act,” would amend the Commodity Exchange Act to bar registered derivatives and trading platforms from listing or clearing certain contracts tied to violent or tragic events. Specifically, it targets agreements, swaps, and similar instruments based on excluded commodities that involve, relate to, or reference terrorism, assassination, war, or other similar activities, as determined by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
The bill also prohibits contracts that involve, relate to, or reference an individual’s death, or that could otherwise be construed as closely correlating to a person’s death. In effect, it would give the CFTC authority to prevent event-based financial products that are seen as betting on death, tragedy, or violent conflict from being offered in U.S. derivatives markets.
If enacted, the bill would amend Section 5c of the Commodity Exchange Act and directly restrict what registered entities may list for trading or accept for clearing. It would affect futures exchanges, swap execution facilities, clearinghouses, and other registered market participants by making certain event contracts unlawful to offer. The practical effect would be to narrow the range of permissible event-based derivatives and expand the CFTC’s role in determining whether a contract falls within the prohibited categories.
Based on the bill text and its introduction, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer-protection and public-morals restriction on speculative trading in death- and violence-related events. No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no recorded debate or formal support/opposition in the provided materials. The introduction and referral suggest the bill was at least procedurally received, but no further legislative sentiment can be inferred from the available record.
The main point of contention is likely to be the scope of the prohibition and the CFTC’s discretion to decide what counts as a contract that “involves, relates to, or references” war, terrorism, assassination, death, or “similar activity.” Supporters would likely argue that such contracts are exploitative and inappropriate, while critics may argue the language is broad, could chill legitimate hedging or event-market innovation, and may create uncertainty for market operators. Because no hearings, amendments, or votes are provided, the specific positions of lawmakers or stakeholders are not documented in the supplied record.