Key Insights
- The Wall Street Journal reviewed more than 1,100 videos and found many featured simulated rather than real bets.
- Creators reportedly earned between $2,000 and $3,000 per month for promotional content.
- Polymarket said it will audit promotional material and remains committed to transparency.
Polymarket is facing mounting scrutiny after an investigation alleged that the prediction market platform paid online creators to publish videos showing fabricated betting activity and exaggerated profits. The findings have raised concerns about marketing practices in a sector already under increasing regulatory attention.
According to a Wall Street Journal investigation, hundreds of social media posts promoted apparent betting successes that did not match actual market outcomes. The report looked at content posted from December 2025 through mid-May 2026, and determined that much of the betting in the video was not on the live platform.
A case is being investigated against the pattern of simulated betting content revealed
1,105 videos were analyzed from 10 creators. Of these, 778 are specific to betting activity associated with Polymarket. A lot of clips featured creators raving about substantial winnings and offering betting tactics which seemed highly profitable.
But several outcomes highlighted were not profitable if wagered on live markets, researchers found. In some cases, the videos relied on outdated footage or event timelines that did not align with the wagers being promoted.
One example involved a market tied to whether U.S. President Donald Trump would say the word McDonald’s. A creator celebrated an apparent win after showing footage of Trump making the statement. The report found that the video evidence had been recorded months before the supposed wager, meaning the bet would not have succeeded under actual market conditions.
The investigation also identified the use of a testing website known as Poiymarket. The platform allegedly looked like the live service and enabled content makers to create betting scenarios without risking any real money.
| Metric | Reported Figure |
|---|
| Videos reviewed | 1,105 |
| Betting-related videos | 778 |
| Videos showing reviewed winnings | 118 |
| Claimed winnings shown | Nearly $900,000 |
| Actual result if executed | More than $166,000 loss |
| Monthly creator payments | $2,000 to $3,000 |
| Estimated campaign views | More than 140 million |
Creator Payments and Amplification Strategy Draw Attention
The report detailed an integrated marketing campaign that included the use of creators, marketing contractors and social media distribution channels. Various artists interviewed are reportedly getting paid between $2,000 and $3,000 per month.
They also said that videos were checked prior to publication. In some cases requests were made for revisions to give more realism or interest to the audience. The investigation found that creators were not encouraged to tell viewers that they were being paid for the content.
In the meantime, marketing contractors reportedly played a role in spreading the video campaign by reposting the videos on major social media. The strategy itself received over 140 million views, which led to a great deal of visibility among potential users.
Later, when journalists began asking questions, many creators took down content or added partnership disclosures, the Journal reported. Some are said to have changed their profiles to have a reference indicating that they are Polymarket partners.
A former employee of the company said the content is similar to what is seen in advertising in other sectors. He argued that the videos illustrated outcomes that users could experience under real conditions.
Growing questions for prediction market platforms
The allegations arrive as prediction markets continue to attract greater public attention and regulatory scrutiny. The report said internal guidance materials encouraged content focused on profitable betting opportunities and, in some cases, referenced the use of non-public information.
That aspect may attract additional attention because regulators have increasingly examined insider trading risks in prediction markets. Industry participants have recently introduced stricter monitoring measures to address concerns surrounding privileged information.
The controversy also raises questions about the transparency of promotions. The videos may have been viewed as real trading experiences, instead of paid marketing content. But critics say that these campaigns can foster false perceptions of profitability and risk.
Polymarket replied, “We are dedicated to providing accurate, fair and transparent markets. The company will undertake a full audit of current promotion and explore their approach to audience.
Regulatory and Market Trust Concerns Emerge
The claims may add to the regulatory pressure on Polymarket, as the authorities have seen that they are already concerned with misleading financial promotions by prediction markets.
The practice of staged betting might lead to the platform and its marketing partners being vulnerable to compliance review by advertising authorities and more demanding disclosure obligations, particularly in financial markets regulators’ jurisdictions where financial marketing regulations are more rigorously enforced.
But at the market level, the debate could compromise user confidence at a critical maturing period for prediction marketplace providers. Artificial profits can lead to false expectations by new participants and question the fairness of trading results. This may result in decreased adoption and a push for advertisers to follow clear advertising guidelines by competitors over time.
Conclusion
The claims are a major challenge to Polymarket in the midst of prediction markets’ growing mainstream acceptance.
It has ignited a debate over transparency, creator marketing and consumer trust, and the company has promised to review its promotional practices. The results of that review could affect future advertising and disclosure policies for prediction market platforms.
