Wall Street Journal investigation finds Polymarket paid creators to post fake bets generating 140 million views

Wall Street Journal investigation finds Polymarket paid creators to post fake bets generating 140 million viewsWall Street Journal investigation finds Polymarket paid creators to post fake bets generating 140 million views

The investigation reviewed 1,105 videos posted between December 2025 and mid-May 2026 by 10 creators and found that roughly 70% included wagers that were never placed on the live platform. The videos reportedly displayed about $1.9 million in fictional bets.

Polymarket has denied any intent to mislead users and said it is committed to maintaining “accurate, fair, and transparent markets.” The company added that it plans to conduct a comprehensive review of its promotional materials.

How fake wagers went viral

The Journal reported that Polymarket built imitation versions of its platform specifically for marketing campaigns, including one hosted on the domain “poiymarket.com” — a URL designed to closely resemble the company’s official website.

One widely viewed video published in January by college student George Makihara appeared to show a $100,000 profit from a wager predicting that U.S. President Donald Trump would say the word “McDonald’s” during the month.

However, the newspaper found that the clip relied on footage of Trump using the term two months before the market’s resolution period. More than 50 real users reportedly placed the same bet and lost money.

The Polymarket WSJ Investigation also found that 118 promotional videos featured creators celebrating nearly $900,000 in winnings that never existed. According to the report, those same positions would have produced more than $166,000 in losses if they had been executed in live markets.

For critics, the findings strike at the core value proposition of prediction markets: trust.

“Consumers have a right to know when content is sponsored,” said the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in its influencer marketing guidelines, which require creators to clearly disclose material relationships with advertisers.

Creator payments and disclosure questions

The investigation alleged that creators received monthly payments ranging from $2,000 to $3,000 and were instructed not to reveal the financial arrangement.

The campaign was allegedly managed through marketing contractor Virality, which oversaw a network of creators known as “clippers.” The company reportedly prioritized creators whose audiences were primarily based in the United States.

That targeting strategy could create additional challenges because Polymarket has been restricted from serving U.S. users since reaching a settlement with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in 2022.

Despite those restrictions, American users have continued accessing the platform through virtual private networks.

The Polymarket WSJ Investigation follows separate reporting from Politico, which alleged that Polymarket Chief Marketing Officer Matthew Modabber used a personal PayPal account to compensate creators posting promotional content on X without advertising disclosures.

According to Politico, Modabber distributed at least $350,000 to influencers, while the account processed more than $2.5 million in payments to over 800 recipients.

The Journal also reported that streamer Adin Ross maintains a multimillion-dollar partnership with Polymarket.

Regulatory pressure builds around prediction market

The allegations arrive at a critical moment for Polymarket as the company pushes to expand its offerings and re-enter the U.S. market.

Recently, the platform introduced prediction markets tied to private company valuations and initial public offerings, broadening its ambitions beyond politics and current events.

At the same time, legal pressure continues to mount.

On June 18, Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman filed lawsuits against Polymarket, rival platform Kalshi, and related partners, alleging they offered unlicensed sports betting products within the state.

Polymarket has consistently argued that its contracts fall under federal commodities regulations rather than state gambling laws.

The Polymarket WSJ Investigation has added another layer of complexity to that debate by raising concerns over whether marketing practices accurately represented user experiences and trading outcomes.

Separately, blockchain analytics account Lookonchain reported on June 21 that three wallets earned a combined $24.25 million from World Cup-related prediction markets before transferring funds through the same Binance deposit address.

While the activity has not been verified as misconduct, analysts suggested the transactions displayed characteristics consistent with potential insider trading.

Polymarket and Binance have not publicly confirmed those allegations.

For a platform built around the idea that markets can efficiently aggregate information and forecast future events, credibility remains its most valuable asset.

As regulators, lawmakers, and users assess the fallout, the Polymarket WSJ Investigation could prove to be a defining test of whether prediction markets can maintain public trust while pursuing rapid growth.