Kalshi removes ‘sportsbook’ references from job listing after online scrutiny
Efforts by prediction platform Kalshi to erase references to sportsbooks from its job listings and marketing have been reported by Sportico.
Kalshi has revised a job posting to remove multiple mentions of “sportsbooks” after users on social media noted that the language clashed with the company’s claim that it is not part of the gambling industry.
The listing for a “sports operations” role originally called for candidates with “extensive experience with sportsbooks” and a “deep understanding of sportsbook nuances.” The phrases were later rewritten as “sports market operations” and “sports market nuances.”
Kalshi, which runs an event-based trading exchange regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, has tried to distinguish its model from traditional sportsbooks such as DraftKings and FanDuel.
The prediction platform recently sued the New York State Gaming Commission, asserting that its event-based futures contracts fall under federal financial regulation, not gambling law.
Yet some of its past marketing, including slogans like “Bet on the NBA legally!,” referenced gambling terminology.
Some parts of the original wording were still visible on LinkedIn, though the company’s Greenhouse job board had been updated. The position, which has been listed for at least two months, offers a salary range of $80,000 to $130,000 plus equity and benefits.
Kalshi did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Verticals:
Sectors:
Topics:
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
Why a job post sparked a bigger debate
Kalshi’s decision to scrub “sportsbook” from a job listing did not happen in a vacuum. The company, which operates an event-based trading exchange under federal oversight, is trying to draw a hard line between financial markets and gambling products. That line keeps shifting under regulatory and political pressure worldwide. Sportico first flagged the edits to Kalshi’s listing, noting that earlier wording sought candidates with “extensive experience with sportsbooks,” later softened to “sports market operations.” The changes followed social media scrutiny of past marketing that leaned on betting language. For context, see Sportico’s coverage in a report detailing the edits and the company’s positioning. That tension — financial framing versus gambling reality — is echoing across markets where lawmakers and regulators are treating language as a compliance signal and a consumer protection issue.
The stakes are significant. If event contracts are labeled gambling, they can trigger state-level licensing, ad restrictions and higher taxes. If they are financial products, they fall under market rules, listing standards and disclosures. Kalshi’s ongoing legal strategy seeks the latter. But in many jurisdictions, the policy momentum is moving toward tougher rules for anything that quacks like a bet, no matter what it is called.
Manila’s push for transparency and control
In the Philippines, fiscal and social concerns are converging into an assertive regulatory agenda. Finance Secretary Ralph Recto floated the idea of forcing all licensed igaming firms to go public on the local exchange, a move aimed at surfacing beneficial owners and tightening oversight. The proposal arrived alongside talk of higher taxes and remittance rates to boost collections by PHP10 billion a year. Read more in our coverage of the government’s plan to require igaming operators to list on the Philippine Stock Exchange, which also details steep stock selloffs at major operators as pressure built.
The Department of Finance’s transparency play dovetails with a separate legislative push to restrict payments, advertising and customer onboarding for online wagering. Senator Sherwin Gatchalian’s bill would impose stricter know-your-customer rules, set a PHP10,000 minimum top-up and bar the use of popular e-wallets. Those provisions rattled investors in DigiPlus Interactive, a bellwether operator, and signaled a policy turn toward curbing mass-market gambling access. Our story on the proposed igaming bill and its market fallout outlines the measures and the industry’s reaction.
PAGCOR, the national regulator, has emphasized the sector’s growth even as it weighs tighter compliance. It reported record first-quarter gross gaming revenue of PHP104.12 billion, with e-games driving almost half the total — evidence of a rapid digital shift that is drawing more scrutiny. PAGCOR’s figures are in its first-quarter update. The acceleration is why Manila’s policymaking now blends revenue goals with consumer safeguards and transparency requirements that look more like securities rules. That is precisely the crosscurrent a firm like Kalshi must navigate as it defends a financial-services identity while regulators globally tighten the definition of gambling.
Social backlash builds alongside regulation
The political climate is shifting because public concern is rising. In the Philippines, church leaders have amplified warnings about the ubiquity of online betting and its risks to families. Cardinal Pablo Virgilio David criticized the normalization of gambling in homes via smartphones and the use of celebrity endorsers to attract customers. His commentary added moral urgency to the policy debate, as seen in his public post condemning the spread of igaming. Religious and civil society critiques often push legislators toward stricter marketing rules, tougher age checks and limitations on payments — guardrails that can blur distinctions between “prediction markets” and sportsbooks.
The industry’s response has stressed compliance and player protection while warning about unintended consequences for legal operators. That balance — permitted innovation versus social harm — is shaping how companies frame their products and even their vocabulary. Kalshi’s language edits mirror a broader trend: distancing from gambling terminology to reduce regulatory risk and political heat.
Advertising flashpoints from Melbourne to the web
Australia offers a case study in how advertising, not just product design, drives policy. After pulling certain TV spots, Sportsbet ran promotions for expanded same-game multis on the Australian Football League’s website, a move that did not break rules but reignited criticism that self-regulation is ineffective. Lawmakers and public health advocates called for comprehensive ad bans, arguing that channel-shifting from broadcast to digital undercuts reform. The episode is detailed in our report on Sportsbet’s online promotions and the call for advertising crackdowns.
For a platform like Kalshi, the lesson is straightforward: marketing language and placement can be treated as evidence of intent. If an operator says “bet” where “trade” would suffice, or targets sports fans with techniques borrowed from sportsbooks, regulators may assume a gambling product and act accordingly. That is why job descriptions and ad copy now carry outsized risk. In an era when policy is catching up to product, semantics can have legal consequences.
Integrity risks on the field and online
Another pressure point is match integrity, especially in lower-tier competitions that attract offshore wagering. New Zealand’s amateur men’s national league has become a surprising target for live betting, with estimates that wagers on a single match can reach NZ$1 million. Officials have not confirmed match fixing, but recent cases in neighboring Australia, including players admitting to manipulating yellow cards, sharpened concerns. Our coverage of offshore betting attention on New Zealand football shows how liquidity in global markets can stress local oversight. The more microbetting proliferates, the higher the exposure to spot-fixing risks that regulators cite when tightening controls.
These integrity worries are not limited to traditional bookmakers. Any venue that creates tradeable outcomes tied to sports can be pulled into the same risk matrix, forcing exchanges to implement surveillance, data-sharing and customer vetting similar to licensed sportsbooks. That further narrows the practical difference between “events trading” and betting in the eyes of policymakers.
AI’s promise, and its regulatory tripwires
Technology compounds the debate. Artificial intelligence is reshaping pricing, personalization and risk management, but industry leaders warn that models amplify bad inputs and can create outsized losses or harmful targeting if unchecked. Panelists at SBC Digital Sportsbook said AI needs guardrails, reliable data and human oversight to avoid bias and blowups. Read the discussion of why AI is powerful but requires limits. For regulators, AI heightens the need for auditable systems and explainable decisions — again pushing betting-adjacent platforms toward obligations that resemble financial compliance.
Taken together, these threads explain the sensitivity around a few words in a Kalshi job listing. Governments are redefining boundaries, investors are reacting to the policy path, advocates are pressing for tighter controls and the technology stack demands more oversight. In such an environment, terminology is not cosmetic. It is a signal that can tip the scales between finance and gambling — and determine who regulates what, how and at what cost.
