Congressman Moulton Criticizes Polymarket For Betting On Military Rescue Dates

U.S. Representative Seth Moulton criticized prediction market platform Polymarket after users traded contracts tied to the fate of missing U.S. service members. The platform removed the market following backlash, citing a breach of internal standards.

Controversy Amid National Crisis

Moulton said the contracts allowed users to speculate on whether individuals would be rescued, calling the activity “disgusting” in a social media post. His comments followed confirmation by President Donald Trump that a second service member had been rescued. Public reaction intensified as the market gained visibility during an ongoing national security situation. The episode raised questions about the limits of financial speculation during active crises.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Ethical Implications And Political Overtones

Moulton described the platform as a “dystopian death market” and pointed to potential conflicts of interest, noting that Donald Trump Jr. is an investor in Polymarket. He also barred his staff from participating in prediction markets, including Polymarket and Kalshi. Concerns focus on whether trading on real-world outcomes involving human lives creates ethical and regulatory risks. Lawmakers are increasingly examining the role of such platforms.

Polymarket’s Response And Industry Context

Polymarket said it removed the market after determining it violated internal integrity standards. The company added that it is reviewing how the contract was approved. Previous activity on the platform included high trading volumes linked to geopolitical events, including conflicts involving Iran. These cases have drawn scrutiny over how prediction markets operate in sensitive contexts.

Outlook

Regulatory and ethical scrutiny of prediction markets is expected to increase following the incident. Future policy responses may address how such platforms handle markets tied to real-world crises.

The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties

Copyright Law Struggles To Keep Up With AI Training

by News Editor

August 24, 2026

Courts Are Still Applying Old Copyright Rules To AI

AI companies train models on enormous amounts of published material, including books, articles and academic research. Whether using that content without authors’ permission violates copyright law remains unresolved.

Much of the debate centres on fair use, which allows copyrighted material to be used without permission in certain circumstances. Courts consider factors such as the purpose of the use, how much material was involved and its impact on the original market.

Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram

Anthropic Case Sets An Important Precedent

A major case involving Anthropic and a group of authors provided one of the clearest rulings so far. Judge William Alsup found that using copyrighted books to train AI models was lawful, comparing the process to people reading and studying literature before creating something new.

Anthropic was nevertheless ordered to pay $1.5 billion in a settlement. The penalty concerned books the company had obtained from illegal online libraries rather than the AI training itself.

For AI companies, that distinction could prove significant because it separates studying copyrighted material from directly copying it.

Competition Could Be The Key Issue

A case involving Thomson Reuters and Ross Intelligence offers a different perspective. A court ruled that Ross could not claim fair use after using Reuters’ copyrighted material to develop a competing AI-powered legal research platform.

The decision suggests courts may be less willing to consider AI training fair use when copyrighted content is used to build a product that directly competes with the original.

For authors, an unresolved question is whether AI-generated content should be considered competition for the works used to train these models.

The Law Has Yet To Catch Up

US copyright law predates generative AI by decades, leaving courts to apply old principles to new technology. Questions also remain over copyright protection for AI-generated works. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, a court ruled that material created entirely by AI cannot receive copyright protection.

Major AI companies remain involved in copyright litigation, and different courts could reach different conclusions. For now, there is no universal rule: the legality of AI training will depend on the circumstances of each case and how courts ultimately interpret copyright and fair use.

Breaking news