The National Meteorological Service of France filed a complaint due to suspected interference

France’s national meteorological service, Météo-France, filed a complaint with the police following suspicion of deliberate interference with temperature measurements at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris. The complaint was submitted after sharp deviations in the indices were recorded on two different dates during April – a phenomenon that raised questions among experts and users alike, according to a report in the Financial Times.

According to the data, on April 6 and 15, jumps of several degrees Celsius were measured in just a few minutes, alongside a sharp drop in humidity. These fluctuations did not match the actual weather conditions, and no reasonable meteorological explanation was found for them. Following physical findings in one of the sensors and an in-depth analysis of the data, the service decided to file a complaint for suspected disruption of a data processing system.

On April 6, an account opened shortly before managed to rake in a profit of about $13,990 from an investment of less than $30, after betting on a temperature of 21 degrees – a scenario estimated to have only a 0.2% probability. The same account added an additional profit of more than 2,000 dollars from betting on a temperature above 18 degrees.

A similar case also occurred on April 15: another digital wallet earned over $21,000 from an investment of only $119, after betting that the temperature would exceed 18 degrees – here, too, in contrast to an extremely low probability in real time.

Users of weather forums, who follow Météo-France data in real time, said that at first they thought it was a technical fault or an unusual phenomenon. However, the repetition of the pattern within a few days raised the suspicion that it was a deliberate external intervention.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that platforms of this type do not always require full identification of the users. Although the activity of digital wallets can be tracked, it is not always possible to know who is behind them – which makes enforcement and investigation difficult.

As of now, there has been no official response from Polymarket or the enforcement authorities in Paris. The investigation is in its early stages, but it is already clear that the case may be a significant test point for the question of reliability and supervision of prediction markets in the digital age.