Polymarket Scraps Cornell Assault Allegations Betting Market Amid Backlash

Polymarket has removed a controversial betting market focused on felony charges for seven men accused of sexually assaulting a Cornell University student, following a significant backlash from survivors' rights advocates and the public.

The prediction market, which launched on September 30, had attracted $451,633 in trading volume before being taken down on Monday. Traders had placed the chances of at least one of the seven men facing felony charges at approximately 28 percent. The market was scheduled to close on January 31, 2027.

The wager was accessible on Polymarket's international platform but not its U.S. application, raising further questions about the regulation of online prediction markets.

Initially, Polymarket defended the market, asserting that such contracts could offer valuable insights into significant events and legal proceedings. However, the decision to allow wagers linked to serious sexual assault allegations sparked widespread condemnation. Campaigners urged the company and its celebrity endorsers to sever ties.

Cheyenne Hunt, an attorney and survivor advocate, described the market as "dehumanizing, disgusting, and dangerous" in an Instagram post and questioned the association of celebrity ambassadors with such ventures. The advocacy group I Have The Right To, which supports sexual assault survivors, also criticized the platform, asking, "What kind of culture looks at sexual violence and sees an opportunity for profit?"

The controversy has intensified scrutiny on Polymarket's celebrity marketing strategy, drawing attention to prominent figures like basketball superstar LeBron James, who reportedly earns $15 million annually promoting the platform. Other notable endorsers include former NFL quarterback Eli Manning, baseball legend Derek Jeter, former NFL players Reggie Bush and Richard Sherman, and basketball star Sue Bird.

An online petition titled "No Gambling on Gang Rape!" called on associated celebrities to end their relationships with Polymarket. Organizers warned that financial incentives tied to the outcomes of criminal proceedings could encourage interference from individuals with inside knowledge or influence.

There is no known evidence that the Cornell investigation has been compromised as a result of the market.

The allegations stem from a civil lawsuit filed in Manhattan on September 16 by a plaintiff identified as Jane Doe. She alleges that seven members of Cornell University's Chi Phi fraternity sexually assaulted her in October 2024. The lawsuit claims the student was intoxicated and allegedly given ketamine, marijuana, and additional alcohol at the fraternity house before the assaults occurred. The complaint names the seven men, Cornell University, and several fraternity and sorority organizations, accusing them of sexual assault and negligence. The allegations have not been proven in court.

Local authorities investigated the claims in 2024, but the Tompkins County district attorney initially opted not to bring criminal charges. The investigation has since been reopened.

Cornell University has stated that its internal disciplinary proceedings resulted in sanctions, including suspensions and expulsions.

A spokesperson for Polymarket stated that the Cornell market "addressed whether the government would take action - a process that deserves scrutiny, particularly in a case of such serious concern." The spokesperson added, "That said, we believe in the wisdom of crowds, have heard them loud and clear, and removed the market."

Critics, however, questioned the justification of financial incentives tied to the potential outcome of sexual assault cases, regardless of their potential as a form of public-interest information. Alex Goldenberg, a senior fellow at Rutgers University's Miller Center for Community Protection and Resilience, suggested that contracts involving criminal cases could incentivize individuals with inside information or influence to interfere with proceedings. He argued that endorsers should understand that promoting a prediction market differs from advertising conventional products due to the markets' inherent ability to determine profit-generating subjects.

Polymarket has faced criticism for other controversial markets in the past, including those related to a kidnapping investigation and women's basketball games. Its competitor, Kalshi, has also faced scrutiny over its betting subjects, though it stated it would not have offered a market on the Cornell allegations. The recent uproar contributes to an ongoing debate about the ethical boundaries for prediction market companies when distinguishing between forecasting public events and engaging in financial speculation on sensitive situations.