George Santos Alleges Hidden Influencer Marketing at Kalshi

The landscape of prediction markets is facing intense scrutiny as former political figures and participants voice serious allegations against leading platforms. George Santos, who was recently banned from the exchange, is now spearheading a public critique of Kalshi’s marketing tactics. During a podcast appearance, Santos claimed to have firsthand knowledge of text messages where Kalshi staff instructed influencers to deliberately omit disclosure of their paid partnerships. The goal, according to Santos, was to make promotional content appear as spontaneous social media commentary, potentially misleading the public about market trends and political sentiments.

Joining Santos in his criticism is Mark Moran, a former Democratic Senate candidate from Virginia. Moran’s grievance focuses on what he describes as retaliatory disciplinary actions. After placing a $100 wager on his own political future—a violation of platform rules—Moran says he was initially offered a settlement involving an $800 fine. However, he alleges that after he refused to issue a public statement dictated by the company, Kalshi increased the penalty to a five-year ban and a fine exceeding $6,200. This escalation, Moran argues, was an attempt to compel his speech and use his case for corporate publicity.

Numbers and facts

The financial stakes involved in these disputes are significant. In July, the CFTC ordered George Santos to disgorge $17,569.98 in trading profits and pay a $17,500 civil penalty. Kalshi independently imposed a much larger penalty of $71,356 on him. Mark Moran’s final penalty was recorded at $6,229.30, a figure he noted is 62 times his original bet. The industry at large is facing similar disclosure issues; reports indicate that Matthew Modabber, the former CMO of rival Polymarket, distributed at least $350,000 to creators between January 2025 and February 2026. These creators reportedly posted at least 490 times on X without disclosing their financial ties to the platform.

"I have seen text messages from the guys who control the political operation for influencers for Kalshi deliberately say, 'Do not disclose it’s a paid partnership. Just post it as if it’s organic' while they’re paying." - George Santos, Former Congressman

Background

At the heart of the controversy is a jurisdictional battle. Kalshi maintains that its operations fall under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as financial instruments. Conversely, state regulators, such as New York Attorney General Letitia James, argue that these contracts are essentially gambling and should be subject to state gaming laws. Santos, despite his personal history with James, has offered his support to her legal efforts, arguing that the distinction between a sportsbook parlay and a prediction market contract is purely semantic. He insists that these activities are gambling and should be regulated as such, citing his own background as a professional blackjack player.

Furthermore, Moran alleges that Kalshi utilized its disciplinary actions as a marketing tool. He claims the company paid influencers a rate of approximately $8 per 1,000 impressions to circulate news about bans and fines, including his own. This practice, he suggests, allows the company to profit from violations that its own internal systems could have prevented. The concern is that large, unchecked positions—such as a $700,000 bet in a Texas market—could be used to manipulate public perception of election outcomes, especially when influenced by high-capital traders or foreign interests.

Why it matters for German players

For players in Germany, platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket remain outside the legal framework. The German Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2021 (GlüStV 2021) strictly prohibits betting on political events due to the high risk of manipulation and the threat to democratic integrity. In Germany, only sports betting and specific casino games licensed by the GGL (Joint Gambling Authority of the States) are permitted. These licensed operators must adhere to strict player protection rules, including a cross-operator monthly deposit limit of 1,000 Euro and mandatory connection to the LUGAS monitoring system. Engaging with offshore prediction markets leaves German residents without legal recourse and risks the non-payment of winnings or the blocking of funds by local banks.

What it means for GGL-licensed casinos

Licensed GGL casinos must follow transparent advertising guidelines that strictly forbid the kind of undisclosed influencer marketing alleged in the Kalshi case. Any failure to clearly label promotional content in Germany results in immediate regulatory action and potential loss of license. The GGL maintains a whitelist of approved providers to ensure that all gambling activities are fair and supervised. For German operators, these scandals highlights the necessity of their rigorous compliance standards. While these regulations, such as the 1 Euro per spin limit for virtual slots, are often seen as restrictive, they provide a level of security and integrity that unregulated international prediction markets currently lack.