Report says Mark Zuckerberg considered a deal with Kalshi before backing away

A report published by 24/7 Wall St. says Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg nearly pursued what the outlet calls a potentially “disastrous” acquisition, before deciding against it. The article frames the missed opportunity as one of Zuckerberg’s key near-misses in 2026, arguing that walking away may have been his best move.

According to the description of the 24/7 Wall St. story, the acquisition would have involved Kalshi, a platform commonly associated with prediction markets. The article’s premise is that Zuckerberg got “eerily close” to steering Meta toward a deal that carried legal and ethical risk, even though the report ultimately characterizes the decision to pass as favorable.

The same report preview also notes that market observers were speculating about Zuckerberg’s broader future wealth trajectory, citing “speculators” and an odds figure of 32% in the outlet’s framing. However, the available text does not provide sourcing, methodology, or primary documentation for that figure, limiting how precisely it can be assessed.

Beyond the general claim that the Kalshi-linked acquisition was almost pursued, the information currently available does not include deal terms, timing, board discussions, negotiation milestones, or whether Meta evaluated the opportunity formally through due diligence. It also does not specify what legal or ethical issues were identified, only that the outlet believes the risks were significant.

Meta did not disclose any details in the materials provided here about an acquisition or evaluation of Kalshi or related prediction-market assets. In particular, there is no information showing whether Meta made an offer, signed a non-disclosure agreement, received an internal risk assessment, or contacted regulators in connection with such a transaction.

Still, if the reported near-miss reflects real internal deliberations, it fits a broader pattern of scrutiny around prediction markets and other platforms that can resemble gambling or financial products depending on how they are structured and regulated. For large technology companies, the challenge is not only technical integration but also compliance, licensing, and the reputational burden that can come with regulatory ambiguity.

For Meta, any move into tightly regulated trading-adjacent offerings would raise questions about product design, user safeguards, and whether any system would require market-structure approvals. Even when a platform is not a direct financial exchange, public perception and regulator attention can quickly escalate, particularly if products appear to enable wagering-like behavior.

What to watch next is whether Meta or any relevant counterpart ever confirms or denies the existence of such acquisition talks. Absent primary disclosures, the key uncertainty remains whether the report reflects concrete negotiations or broader speculation, and whether any legal review was actually conducted before the opportunity was dropped.