The Ohio Casino Control Commission quietly withdrew its membership from the National Council on Problem Gambling in June, the commission confirmed to Sports Betting Dime, becoming the third state gaming authority to cut ties with the council over its decision to admit prediction-market operator Kalshi.
The Ohio exit follows the same pattern set by the Michigan Gaming Control Board and the Nevada Council on Problem Gambling, both of which publicly withdrew over the summer citing Kalshi’s presence within the organization. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission, by contrast, recently weighed the same question and voted to stay – though members made clear the decision isn’t permanent.
Why Regulators Are Reassessing Ties to NCPG
The dispute centers on whether a national organization dedicated to problem-gambling advocacy can credibly maintain a paying member that multiple state regulators consider an unlicensed sportsbook operator. Michigan and Nevada made their objections public over the summer; Ohio’s departure only came to light when the Massachusetts Gaming Commission discussed its own membership status at a recent meeting, marking the first public acknowledgment of the OCCC’s move.
At stake for regulators is a question of consumer clarity: whether association with a group that counts Kalshi as a member creates confusion among consumers about whether prediction-market platforms carry the same protections as state-licensed sportsbooks. Ohio’s interim director argued directly that it does not, and framed the council’s posture as anything but neutral.
How Kalshi’s NCPG Membership Triggered the Objections
Kalshi joined the National Council on Problem Gambling in May 2026 following a $2 million investment spread over two years. To accommodate the company, the council created a new Financial Services & Trading Subcategory, through which Kalshi entered as a platinum member – the council’s top membership tier.
Ohio Casino Control Commission Interim Director Andromeda Morrison cited that membership directly as the reason for the OCCC’s withdrawal. In a letter to the NCPG, Morrison argued that the council’s actions were not neutral despite its stated position, and that by admitting Kalshi it was effectively working to legitimize what she described as an illegal sportsbook operating in Ohio while undercutting the commission’s efforts to shut down unlicensed gambling in the state. She wrote that the council appeared poised to go further by building a new membership class specifically for prediction-market companies.
Michigan Gaming Control Board Executive Director Henry Williams raised a related but distinct objection when his agency withdrew in July, becoming the first regulator to leave. Williams told the council that Michigan could no longer maintain the relationship while a prediction-market operator was also among its ranks, and pointed to Kalshi’s litigation against states as evidence the company was working to sidestep the consumer-protection safeguards Michigan and other states have built into their sports-betting regulations. That earlier dispute is detailed in ReadWrite’s coverage of Michigan’s original break with the council.
Massachusetts Stays – For Now
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission took a different path. After reviewing the Michigan and Nevada withdrawals – and hearing publicly for the first time about Ohio’s earlier exit – the commission’s research and responsible gaming department recommended remaining in the council. Commissioners accepted that recommendation, voting 5-0 to stay.
The vote wasn’t a full endorsement. Commissioner Eileen O’Brien noted the overlap between what the commission regulates and the litigation surrounding prediction markets, and said she was comfortable accepting the recommendation for now but wanted the commission to keep watching the situation closely, adding that a point may come, possibly soon, when severing ties becomes necessary.
Commission Chairman Jordan Maynard was more pointed, telling colleagues the council should be put on notice. He said the commission wouldn’t change its values because an organization was taking money from a prediction-market company, and that the commission intended to hold the council accountable – suggesting the topic would likely resurface when the commission’s membership renewal comes around again.
A Pattern of Departures
The sequence is now fairly clear. Ohio withdrew first, in June, though that decision wasn’t publicly known until the Massachusetts meeting surfaced it. Michigan followed in July as the first regulator to announce its exit publicly. Nevada withdrew in August, citing both Kalshi’s NCPG membership and ongoing prediction-market litigation active in the state. Massachusetts then reviewed all three departures before choosing, for now, to remain.
Three state gaming authorities cutting ties with the same national advocacy organization inside a few months is a notable signal, even if Massachusetts’s decision to stay tempers the trend somewhat. It suggests the NCPG’s Kalshi membership has become a genuine liability in its relationships with the regulators it was built to work alongside, rather than a passing controversy.
What the Dispute Signals for Consumer Protection
The core objection from regulators isn’t abstract. Ohio’s Morrison framed the concern in terms of consumer confusion – the risk that association between a trusted problem-gambling organization and a prediction-market platform blurs the line for consumers trying to determine whether that platform carries the same regulatory protections as a licensed sportsbook. That question sits alongside broader scrutiny of Kalshi’s consumer-facing practices, including questions raised elsewhere about transparency around retail trading losses on Kalshi’s platform.
It also lands amid a wider push to formalize how problem gambling is recognized and treated, including Illinois’s recent move to formally recognize gambling disorder as a behavioral health condition. Regulators like Michigan’s Williams have tied their objections directly to Kalshi’s litigation against states seeking to enforce licensing and consumer-protection rules, arguing that continued NCPG affiliation with the company undermines the very safeguards state gaming commissions are charged with upholding.
What Comes Next
Massachusetts says it will keep evaluating its NCPG membership as the situation develops, rather than treating the 5-0 vote as a closed matter. Maynard’s comments point to the commission’s next membership renewal as a likely moment for the issue to resurface, though the commission hasn’t set a specific date or scheduled a formal review beyond that.
For now, the split leaves the NCPG with three fewer state regulatory members than it had at the start of the summer, and at least one more – Massachusetts – watching closely enough that a fourth departure isn’t out of the question.
