Polymarket and Kalshi: Influencer Partners Must Accept Election Results

As the U.S. barrels toward a highly charged midterm election season, prediction market platforms are already colliding with the very influencers they pay to promote their services. Both Kalshi and Polymarket have confirmed to WIRED that they instructed certain content creators to remove “paid partnership” labels from social media posts that raised doubts about the results of the Los Angeles mayoral race.

After conservative celebrity and former reality TV star Spencer Pratt dropped to third place behind incumbent Karen Bass and city councilmember Nithya Raman, several right-leaning influencers began publishing posts questioning the legitimacy of the outcome. One particularly prominent post came from Gunther Eagleman, a MAGA-focused creator with over 1.7 million followers, who insinuated that Pratt’s opponents were “stealing” the election. According to a report from Semafor, Kalshi asked these creators to take down the posts last Friday.

While Kalshi does not publicly disclose the terms of its paid partnerships, the company’s internal policies explicitly prohibit affiliates from challenging the integrity or accuracy of official election results or related legal rulings. “These are internal policies to guide our affiliates and partners, and they include standards around the promotion of and marketing of Kalshi markets on elections,” spokesperson Dani Lever told WIRED.

Over at Polymarket, the company has similarly requested that two creators remove paid-partnership tags from posts that were critical of the election results. One such post, from right-wing influencer Benny Johnson, suggested that the shift in Raman’s betting odds on Polymarket was due to the fact that “the public has so little faith in California’s elections that they just assume Democrats are going to dramatically rig it.” Johnson’s post carried a paid content tag from June 4 until June 8, when it was finally removed.

Johnson did not respond to requests for comment. Since the takedown, he has not published any additional Polymarket affiliate content.

“Our existing marketing guidelines explicitly prohibit affiliates from providing misleading or false information, and we will continue to monitor and ensure compliance with our paid contributors,” Olivia Chalos, Polymarket’s deputy chief legal officer, said in a statement.

Polymarket declined to share the specific language used in its affiliate contracts, though the company confirmed that its guidelines ban false and misleading statements. As the newsletter Popular Information first reported earlier today, other posts labeled as paid partnerships with Polymarket and Kalshi that promote election-denial narratives remain online. This highlights how enforcing these rules has become a game of whack-a-mole for prediction market firms. Polymarket told WIRED it is pursuing additional accounts that have violated its policies.

Last week, Politico reported that Polymarket’s chief marketing officer, Matthew Modabber, pays content creators directly through PayPal,an unconventional method. It remains unclear whether Modabber paid Johnson or right-wing commentator Kangmin Lee, whose post was also removed, for these specific partnerships. Polymarket declined to comment on the payment arrangement.

Both Kalshi and Polymarket offer a wide array of markets tied to politics and elections, and prediction market odds are increasingly featured in mainstream election coverage. CNN, for instance, entered into a formal partnership with Kalshi late last year. However, the platforms are facing intense scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators. Many state officials argue that these startups should be regulated like gambling platforms rather than commodities exchanges, and dozens of ongoing lawsuits seek to force them to comply with state gambling laws. There is also bipartisan concern about how these markets could enable or encourage insider trading and market manipulation.

This latest episode raises yet another red flag. These companies have tied themselves to influencers who openly embrace election denialism. The odds that this is an isolated incident,and that this roster of incendiary commentators will otherwise exercise sound judgment about what qualifies as appropriate paid promotional content,look slim.