Polymarket, a cryptocurrency prediction market platform, now faces a federal lawsuit alleging it orchestrated a massive scheme to pay hundreds of influencers for undisclosed endorsements and fake betting demonstrations. The National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA) filed the complaint in D.C. Superior Court against Blockratize Inc. (Polymarket’s parent company), CEO Shayne Coplan, and Chief Marketing Officer Matthew Modabber, claiming the platform engaged in deceptive marketing practices designed to lure retail investors—particularly college students—into speculative trading.
According to Bloomberg Law and Crypto Briefing, the scheme cost Polymarket at least $2.5 million distributed to over 800 content creators between January 2025 and February 2026. The lawsuit details a coordinated deception involving multiple layers of fake promotion. Riley Gaines, a content creator, received at least $6,000 for undisclosed positive posts about Polymarket, while Brian Krassenstein received at least $9,300 for similar hidden endorsements. These payments violated Federal Trade Commission guidelines requiring influencers to clearly disclose sponsored content. The damage extended further than simple undisclosed ads—investigators found that influencers created entirely fabricated betting scenarios presented to audiences as real trading activity, fundamentally misleading consumers about the platform’s profitability and risk profile.
Table of Contents
- How Did Polymarket’s Influencer Payments Work?
- The “Clipping” Campaign and Artificial Virality
- Fake Betting Videos and Fabricated Wins
- Why Polymarket’s Practices Violated Consumer Protection Laws
- Regulatory Response and the CFTC Investigation
- Who Was Targeted by Polymarket’s Campaign?
- The Broader Implications for Cryptocurrency Marketing
- Frequently Asked Questions
How Did Polymarket’s Influencer Payments Work?
Polymarket’s Chief Marketing Officer distributed at least $350,000 directly to influencers for undisclosed promotions, according to Crypto.news reporting. Beyond individual creator payments, the platform cast an exceptionally wide net: over 2.5 million dollars reached 800+ creators across just 13 months, averaging over $3,000 per creator. The scale of this operation demonstrates that hidden payments were not isolated lapses but a systematic marketing strategy. The NACA lawsuit alleges that Polymarket specifically targeted younger audiences, including college students who may lack experience evaluating financial risk and recognizing deceptive advertising.
The payment model encouraged volume and reach above transparency. Influencers received compensation not for honest product reviews but for creating content that presented Polymarket as a simple path to profit. Yahoo Finance reporting indicates that at least 490 sponsored posts appeared on X (formerly Twitter) without proper disclosure labels during this period. For context, a typical influencer might post 2-3 times per week; 490 undisclosed posts across multiple creators represents a deliberately hidden campaign designed to saturate social media with manufactured enthusiasm.
The “Clipping” Campaign and Artificial Virality
One of the lawsuit’s most damaging allegations involves Polymarket’s “clipping” operation. The platform paid people $1 per 1,000 views to cut footage from established influencers’ videos, repackage the clips, and distribute them through newly created accounts designed to appear as ordinary users, according to Crypto Briefing. This tactic obscured the commercial nature of the promotion while multiplying its reach. A single paid post from an established influencer could be recycled dozens of times through fake accounts, making the deceptive content appear more widespread and trustworthy than it actually was.
This strategy exploited a basic human cognitive bias: repeated exposure to a message increases perceived credibility. When an audience sees the same claim about Polymarket’s profitability from what appears to be multiple independent sources, they are more likely to trust it. In reality, those “independent” accounts were coordinated as part of a single paid campaign. The clipping operation also created plausible deniability for the original influencers—if their shortened clips were taken out of context, they could claim the edited version misrepresented their original message.
Fake Betting Videos and Fabricated Wins
The Wall Street Journal conducted an independent analysis that exposed the core fraud at the heart of Polymarket’s influencer campaign. Researchers examined 1,105 videos from 10 creators and found that 70% featured fake bets—scenarios presented as real money trades but created entirely for promotional purposes. These videos claimed a collective $1.9 million in wagers and $900,000 in winnings. When investigators dug deeper, they discovered that none of these bets actually occurred. Every single one was fabricated.
The impact of this finding cannot be overstated. Consumers watching these videos were being shown fictional evidence of consistent profitability. A potential customer seeing a creator “win” $50,000 on a prediction market had no way to know that trade never happened and that the creator had simply been paid by Polymarket to script the scenario. This type of demonstration carries enormous persuasive power because it bypasses rational argument and appeals directly to aspiration. Someone watching fake betting wins is more likely to deposit money and take real risks than someone reading text-based marketing claims.
Why Polymarket’s Practices Violated Consumer Protection Laws
The FTC’s Endorsement Guides require influencers to clearly disclose when they are paid to promote products or services. Polymarket’s payments to Riley Gaines, Brian Krassenstein, and hundreds of others violated this requirement by presenting paid promotional content as organic, unsponsored recommendations. The distinction matters legally and practically. When a consumer sees an undisclosed paid endorsement, they cannot properly weigh the creator’s financial incentive to misrepresent the product.
They are being deceived about the source of the opinion. The fake betting videos represent a more severe violation because they involve affirmative fraud, not merely omitted disclosures. Presenting a fictional trade as real is a direct lie designed to induce consumers to deposit money on Polymarket’s platform. Unlike many consumer deception cases that involve misleading but technically true claims, Polymarket allegedly showed consumers fabricated demonstrations of success. This crosses from deceptive marketing into outright fraud.
Regulatory Response and the CFTC Investigation
Senators John Curtis and Adam Schiff have called for a federal investigation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which is reportedly already examining Polymarket’s conduct, according to the Washington Examiner. The CFTC has authority over derivatives markets and commodity trading platforms, making Polymarket’s prediction market business subject to its oversight. The question of whether prediction markets are properly regulated or should be treated as gambling remains contested in U.S.
law, but the CFTC’s interest signals that federal regulators view Polymarket’s conduct as potentially violating multiple laws. A crucial limitation to understand: the NACA lawsuit is a civil complaint in state court, while a CFTC investigation operates at the federal administrative level with different standards and potential penalties. A finding of fraud by civil courts would not automatically result in CFTC sanctions, and vice versa. However, the convergence of regulatory attention—state attorney general oversight, congressional pressure, and federal agency investigation—suggests that Polymarket’s influencer marketing scheme has triggered significant concern about its business model and compliance practices.
Who Was Targeted by Polymarket’s Campaign?
The NACA lawsuit specifically alleges that Polymarket targeted college students and other young, inexperienced investors who lacked knowledge about prediction markets and their risks. This targeting was not accidental but deliberate—the platform selected influencers popular with younger audiences and emphasized quick profits and successful trades in promotional content. College-age consumers represent a particularly vulnerable population for financial fraud because they may have limited savings, minimal experience with investing, and higher susceptibility to influencer marketing.
Research on influencer marketing effectiveness shows that audiences between ages 18-24 are significantly more likely to make purchase decisions based on creator endorsements than older age groups. Polymarket’s allocation of millions of dollars specifically toward creators popular with this demographic indicates the platform understood this vulnerability and exploited it. A 21-year-old seeing a trusted creator post about easy profits on prediction markets faces different decision-making pressures than a 55-year-old investor with decades of financial experience.
The Broader Implications for Cryptocurrency Marketing
Polymarket’s case exemplifies problems that have plagued cryptocurrency marketing for years: the use of paid promoters, fake success stories, and coordinated campaigns designed to obscure their commercial nature. The prediction market sector specifically has attracted regulatory skepticism because the products combine cryptocurrency volatility with gambling-like characteristics and uncertain legal status in the United States. When influencers demonstrate these products with fictional trades, they eliminate any distinction between entertainment hype and fraudulent solicitation.
The false claim that none of the 1,105 analyzed videos contained real bets transforms these videos from exaggerated marketing into per se fraud. Audiences cannot reasonably assess the risk or likelihood of success when presented with entirely fabricated outcomes. Potential customers considering whether to deposit money on Polymarket faced a marketing campaign designed to appear grassroots but was actually centrally coordinated by the company’s marketing leadership. The CMO’s direct distribution of at least $350,000 to influencers for undisclosed promotions represents explicit control over the campaign’s messaging and scope.
- —
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Polymarket and what does it do?
Polymarket is a cryptocurrency-based prediction market platform where users bet on the outcomes of events. Participants deposit money to wager on predictions, with payouts if their forecasts prove correct. The platform operates in a legal gray area because prediction markets have uncertain regulatory status in the United States.
What exactly is the NACA lawsuit claiming?
The National Association of Consumer Advocates filed a federal lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court alleging that Polymarket (Blockratize Inc.), CEO Shayne Coplan, and CMO Matthew Modabber engaged in deceptive marketing by paying influencers to create undisclosed promotions and fake betting videos designed to appear as real successful trades.
How much money did Polymarket spend on influencer payments?
According to the lawsuit and media reporting, Polymarket paid over $2.5 million to more than 800 creators between January 2025 and February 2026. Its CMO distributed at least $350,000 of that amount directly to influencers.
What is the “clipping” campaign mentioned in the lawsuit?
Polymarket paid people $1 per 1,000 views to take footage from established creators’ videos, cut them into short clips, and repost them through newly created accounts designed to look like ordinary users. This multiplied the reach of promotional content while obscuring its commercial nature.
What did the Wall Street Journal investigation find?
The WSJ analyzed 1,105 videos from 10 creators and found that 70% featured fake bets. The videos claimed $1.9 million in total wagered amounts and $900,000 in winnings, but none of these trades actually occurred.
Are there other federal investigations into Polymarket?
Yes. Senators John Curtis and Adam Schiff have called for a CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) investigation, which is reportedly already underway. The CFTC has authority over derivatives and commodity trading platforms. —