The Court Order at a Glance
- Case: IPP N° 18441/2026-0 — POLYMARKET, NN s/ 301BIS – Juegos de Azar sin Autorización Pertinente
- Court: Juzgado de Primera Instancia en lo Penal, Contravencional y de Faltas N° 31, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires
- Judge: Dra. Susana Beatriz Parada
- Date: March 11, 2026
- Order: Directed to ENACOM (Ente Nacional de Comunicaciones) — immediate ISP-level blocking of polymarket.com and all variants
- Legal Basis: Article 301bis of the Argentine Penal Code — operating unauthorized gambling
What the Argentine Court Ordered
On March 11, 2026, Judge Susana Beatriz Parada of Buenos Aires' First Instance Criminal, Contravention and Misdemeanor Court No. 31 issued a formal directive to the Ente Nacional de Comunicaciones (ENACOM) — Argentina's national telecommunications regulator — ordering it to block access to Polymarket (polymarket.com and all variants) at the ISP level, effective immediately.
The case, docketed under IPP N° 18441/2026-0, was brought under Article 301bis of the Argentine Penal Code, which criminalizes the operation or facilitation of unauthorized gambling games. The court classified Polymarket's prediction market contracts as unauthorized gambling, making the platform's operation within Argentina a criminal matter — not merely a civil or regulatory one.
The order was co-directed to the Fiscalía Especializada en Juegos de Azar (MPFCABA) — the specialized gambling prosecutor's office for the City of Buenos Aires — and instructed ENACOM that if the block could not be implemented through the ISPs for operational reasons, the court or the specialized prosecutor must be notified immediately, along with alternative enforcement measures.
This is a significant escalation from the typical regulatory warning letter. By invoking the criminal code and directing a national communications authority to enforce a blacklist, Argentina has placed prediction market access squarely in the same category as illegal online casinos and unlicensed sportsbooks.
"...a fin de requerirle que se sirva disponer lo necesario para impedir por sí o a través de las ISP, el acceso a la página web POLYMARKET (https://polymarket.com y sus variantes)."
— Juzgado N° 31, Buenos Aires, March 11, 2026 | Translation: "...in order to request that you take the necessary steps to block, directly or through ISPs, access to the Polymarket website and its variants."
Argentina Is Not Alone: A Growing Global Crackdown
The Buenos Aires ruling is the latest in a sustained pattern of countries moving to restrict or outright ban access to prediction market platforms. From Western Europe to Southeast Asia, regulators and courts are consistently reaching the same conclusion: prediction markets, as currently structured, fall outside existing licensed gambling frameworks — and must be blocked until they comply or exit.
France — ARJEL / ANJ Blocks
France's gambling authority, the Autorité Nationale des Jeux (ANJ), placed Polymarket on its list of prohibited gambling sites. French ISPs were directed to block the domain under France's strict online gambling regime, which requires a specific ANJ license to offer any wagering product to French consumers. Polymarket, operating under U.S. CFTC oversight as a prediction market exchange, does not hold an ANJ license.
United Kingdom — UK Gambling Commission Restrictions
The UK Gambling Commission has consistently held that prediction market-style contracts offered to UK residents require a Remote Operating Licence. Platforms that have not obtained this licence face ISP blocking orders under the Gambling Act 2005. The UKGC has also issued public advisories warning consumers that unregulated prediction platforms offer no consumer protection or dispute resolution rights.
Brazil — SIGAP / Secretaria de Prêmios e Apostas Enforcement
Brazil's newly activated online gambling regulatory framework — now administered by the Secretaria de Prêmios e Apostas under the Ministry of Finance — requires operators to hold a federal license to offer any betting product to Brazilian consumers. Unlicensed platforms, including prediction markets, are subject to mandatory ISP blocks under Brasil's Lei 14.790/2023. Prediction market platforms that have not obtained Brazilian licensing face imminent enforcement as the regulatory framework becomes fully operational.
Germany — Glücksspielbehörden (GGL) Blocking Orders
Germany's Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder (GGL) — the joint gambling authority of the German states — operates a formal blocking mechanism under the Interstate Gambling Treaty (Glücksspielstaatsvertrag 2021). Prediction market platforms not licensed under the treaty are listed on a public blocking register, and German ISPs are legally obligated to restrict access. The GGL has proactively pursued unlicensed foreign platforms.
Australia — ACMA Interactive Gambling Blocks
Australia's Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) maintains a Prohibited Content Register under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. Platforms offering gambling-like services to Australian consumers without an Australian licence are added to this register, triggering ISP blocking obligations. Prediction markets have been added to this register, with ACMA citing the lack of an Australian Licence as the primary basis for prohibition.
Singapore — MAS / MHA Dual-Track Restrictions
Singapore has approached prediction market restrictions from two angles. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has taken the position that certain prediction market contracts constitute regulated financial instruments requiring a Capital Markets Services licence. Simultaneously, the Ministry of Home Affairs has authority to block online gambling platforms under Singapore's Remote Gambling Act. Platforms have faced dual-track pressure from both financial regulators and gambling authorities.
Why These Bans Keep Happening
A consistent thread runs through every country's enforcement action: prediction market platforms launched and scaled internationally before engaging with local regulators. The regulatory arbitrage that made Polymarket and others attractive — operating outside traditional gaming jurisdictions while serving a global user base — is precisely what makes them targets.
Most national gambling regulators apply a straightforward test: if a consumer in this country can access the product and place money at risk on the outcome of an uncertain event, a gambling licence is required. Whether the platform calls it a "prediction market," an "event contract," or an "information exchange" does not change that underlying legal analysis in most jurisdictions.
The Argentine court order is particularly instructive because it invokes the criminal code, not a civil or administrative gambling law. This means potential criminal exposure — not just fines — for operators who facilitate access from Argentina. It also signals that the Buenos Aires judiciary is treating the platform's access to Argentine consumers as the operative fact, regardless of where the company is incorporated.
The Geolocation Enforcement Gap
ISP-level blocking orders — like the one directed to ENACOM in Argentina — are the enforcement tool that regulators use when they cannot compel a foreign platform to self-enforce geographic restrictions. But ISP blocks have well-known limitations: technically sophisticated users can circumvent them with VPNs in seconds.
The underlying problem is that Polymarket and platforms like it have not deployed sufficiently robust client-side geolocation enforcement. If the platform could verify, at the device level, that a user is physically located in a restricted jurisdiction — and block access before the connection is even established — ISP-blocking orders would become unnecessary. The court is stepping in to do what the platform's own compliance infrastructure has not.
What This Means for Prediction Market Operators
For platforms currently operating in this space — or planning to — the trajectory is clear. The era of "default open" access, where a platform serves a global user base and then reactively blocks jurisdictions as enforcement actions arrive, is closing fast. Several key implications follow:
Argentina's use of Article 301bis demonstrates that regulators are not limiting themselves to civil fines. Operators who knowingly continue to serve restricted markets after a blocking order may face criminal liability.
If a platform does not take active steps to detect and block VPN-based access from restricted countries, regulators may argue that the platform is facilitating circumvention of its own ISP blocking orders.
Platforms that deploy genuine device-level geolocation enforcement — not just IP-based checks — can demonstrate to regulators that they have made good-faith efforts to exclude restricted users. This is a meaningful compliance defense.
Courts and regulators increasingly expect platforms to produce evidence of where a user was when they traded. Cryptographically signed location records, timestamped at the device level, are becoming a baseline compliance requirement.
The Path Forward: Compliance-First Architecture
The companies that will survive — and scale — in the prediction market space are those that treat geographic compliance as a first-class engineering requirement, not an afterthought. That means:
- Verifying user location at the device level using multi-signal triangulation — not just IP address lookups that VPNs trivially bypass
- Actively detecting and blocking VPN, proxy, and GPS spoofing attempts that indicate deliberate jurisdictional evasion
- Maintaining a cryptographically signed, tamper-evident audit trail of location data for every transaction, producible on demand to regulators and courts
- Engaging proactively with regulators in key markets, rather than waiting for a court order and ISP block to force the conversation
Don't Wait for the Blocking Order
The Argentine court's order to ENACOM is a reminder that regulators will act when platforms don't. Peabody gives prediction market operators the device-level location intelligence to self-enforce — and the audit trail to prove it.
Start your compliance review