Polymarket Faces Devastating European Crackdown: Hungary and Portugal Block Access Amid Regulatory Storm

In a significant escalation of regulatory pressure, the crypto-based prediction market platform Polymarket has been hit with fresh access blocks in Europe, with authorities in Hungary and Portugal taking decisive action in February 2025. These moves intensify a continent-wide debate over whether such platforms constitute financial innovation or unlicensed gambling, creating substantial uncertainty for the burgeoning sector. Consequently, the platform now faces operational restrictions in multiple key jurisdictions, signaling a challenging new phase for decentralized prediction markets globally.

Polymarket Confronts European Regulatory Onslaught

Hungary’s financial regulatory authority, the Szabályozott Tevékenységek Felügyeleti Hatósága (SZTFH), issued a formal notice on Friday, February 7, 2025, temporarily blocking access to Polymarket’s domain and all associated subdomains. The regulator explicitly cited the “forbidden organization of gambling activities” as the legal basis for its intervention. This restriction will remain enforceable until the authority completes its comprehensive review of the platform’s operations. Users attempting to access Polymarket from Hungarian IP addresses now encounter a direct warning message from the SZTFH, effectively cutting off local participation.

Simultaneously, Portugal’s Gaming Regulation and Inspection Service (SRIJ) ordered Polymarket to wind down all activity targeting Portuguese users. According to reports from the local news outlet Rádio Renascença, the platform remained technically accessible as of Monday, February 10, suggesting enforcement procedures were still underway. This coordinated, yet asynchronous, regulatory action highlights the varied pace of enforcement across European Union member states, despite shared concerns.

The Expanding Global Crackdown on Prediction Markets

The actions by Hungary and Portugal represent the latest chapters in a rapidly growing global regulatory narrative. Previously, in January 2025, Ukraine classified Polymarket’s activities as unlicensed gambling under national law and implemented an access block. This European pressure follows a series of similar restrictions enacted in late 2024 and early 2025.

• France: The National Gaming Authority (ANJ) announced plans in November 2024 to block Polymarket for non-compliance with national gambling legislation.
• Switzerland: The Swiss Gambling Supervisory Authority (ESBK) classified the platform as unlicensed gambling and ordered access restrictions in late November 2024.
• Poland: The Ministry of Finance added Polymarket to its official registry of prohibited gambling websites on January 8, 2025.
• Singapore: The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) blocked access days later as part of a broader crackdown.
• Belgium: The Gambling Commission took action on January 30, 2025, citing violations of the Gambling Act.

According to its own website, Polymarket is already geoblocked in 33 countries, a list that continues to expand. The core regulatory conflict hinges on a fundamental classification issue: are these markets a form of financial speculation or simply online betting? Regulators in the blocking jurisdictions have uniformly adopted the latter interpretation, applying existing gambling statutes.

Insider Trading Scrutiny Amplifies Regulatory Focus

The regulatory scrutiny intensified significantly following a high-profile event in early January 2025. A Polymarket user placed a $32 bet on a contract predicting the removal of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro. The bet was placed mere hours before U.S. forces captured the leader, netting the user approximately $400,000 in profit. This incident raised immediate and serious concerns about potential insider trading and market manipulation, attracting attention from lawmakers beyond financial regulators.

In response, U.S. legislators have proposed new bills aimed explicitly at restricting trading on political prediction markets by government officials and individuals with access to non-public information. This political dimension adds another layer of complexity to the regulatory environment, suggesting that prediction markets may face oversight from both gambling and financial securities authorities in different regions.

Market Mechanics and the Core Regulatory Debate

Polymarket operates by allowing users to trade binary outcome contracts tied to real-world events. Prices are set dynamically by market participants through a continuous trading mechanism, rather than by a traditional bookmaker setting fixed odds. Proponents of the model argue this structure mirrors financial markets—like futures or options trading—where participants hedge risk or speculate on future outcomes. They contend it provides valuable, aggregated information about event probabilities.

However, regulators in blocking countries maintain that the fundamental activity—wagering money on an uncertain future event—falls squarely within their legal definitions of gambling. The absence of a centralized “house” or bookmaker does not, in their view, alter the essential nature of the transaction. The following table contrasts the two primary perspectives:

This unresolved debate creates a patchwork of regulations that is difficult for global platforms to navigate. Furthermore, the record trading volume of $701.7 million across prediction markets on January 12, 2025—driven largely by competitor Kalshi—demonstrates significant user demand, complicating the regulatory calculus by introducing economic activity and innovation considerations.

Conclusion

The access blocks imposed by Hungary and Portugal on Polymarket represent a critical inflection point for crypto prediction markets in Europe. These actions underscore a hardening regulatory stance that views such platforms through the lens of gambling law rather than financial innovation. As a result, the industry faces a fragmented and challenging operational landscape. The path forward likely requires clear legal frameworks that distinguish between different types of prediction markets, potentially creating licensed categories for those focusing on non-speculative information aggregation. For now, the regulatory storm over Polymarket continues to gather strength, with its long-term viability in many markets hanging in the balance.

FAQs

Q1: Why did Hungary block Polymarket?
Hungary’s financial regulator, the SZTFH, temporarily blocked access to Polymarket, citing the “forbidden organization of gambling activities.” The authority is conducting a review, and the block will remain until that process concludes.

Q2: Is Polymarket illegal in all of Europe?
No, the regulatory approach varies by country. While nations like Hungary, Portugal, France, and Belgium have blocked or restricted it, other European countries may have different, or still-evolving, stances. The platform is geoblocked in specific jurisdictions, not the entire continent.

Q3: What is the main argument for classifying prediction markets as gambling?
Regulators argue that users are essentially wagering money on the outcome of uncertain future events, which fits the legal definition of gambling in many jurisdictions. The decentralized, peer-to-peer trading mechanism does not, in their view, change this core activity.

Q4: How does the recent insider trading concern affect regulation?
The incident where a user profited $400,000 from a bet placed hours before a major geopolitical event raised alarms about market integrity. It has led to proposed legislation in the U.S. and increased scrutiny globally, adding a financial market oversight angle to the existing gambling debate.

Q5: Can users in blocked countries still access Polymarket?
Access is technically restricted at the IP address level by internet service providers complying with regulator orders. While users might attempt to bypass blocks using VPNs, this typically violates the platform’s terms of service and local laws.