NCPG executive director resigns amid Kalshi controversy

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2026/07/06: Michigan Gaming Control Board cuts ties with National Council on Problem Gambling over Kalshi partnership 2026/05/19: Kalshi joins National Council on Problem Gambling 2025/11/18: DraftKings, FanDuel confirm departure from American Gaming Association 2026/09/23: Kalshi seeks CFTC approval on margin trading; CFTC issues advisory on “mention” markets

The Backstory

Kalshi partnership put NCPG’s neutrality under pressure

Heather Maurer’s resignation from the National Council on Problem Gambling came after months in which the nonprofit’s attempt to engage with prediction markets collided with a widening legal and political fight over whether those products are gambling. The immediate flashpoint was Kalshi, whose $2 million, two-year commitment to NCPG turned a debate over consumer safeguards into a test of institutional independence for one of the best-known problem gambling organizations in the U.S.

The partnership, announced in May, made Kalshi the first member of NCPG’s new Financial Services & Trading category. The stated purpose was to support work on trader health and safety, including research, education and harm-reduction tools for a product category that has grown quickly outside the state-by-state sports betting framework. NCPG said it was not taking a position on whether prediction markets are legal gambling. That distinction became harder to maintain as state regulators escalated enforcement actions and industry groups began drawing sharper lines around the sector.

The controversy illustrates a broader shift in U.S. wagering and trading markets. Prediction market operators say they are federally regulated financial exchanges overseen by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. State gambling regulators argue that sports event contracts look and function like online sports bets and should be licensed under state gaming laws. NCPG’s decision to accept Kalshi funding placed it in the middle of that jurisdictional fight, even though its public role has been focused on gambling harm, not market classification.

State regulators moved first, and Michigan forced the issue

The most consequential break came from Michigan. The Michigan Gaming Control Board ended its relationship with NCPG after Kalshi joined the organization, saying the regulator could not remain affiliated with a group tied to a company it viewed as offering unlicensed gambling. The move followed Michigan’s own enforcement effort against Kalshi. On June 30, the board announced a temporary restraining order intended to stop the company from offering what the regulator described as unlicensed internet sports betting to Michigan residents.

Michigan Executive Director Henry Williams framed the concern as both legal and consumer-protection driven, arguing that prediction markets were “sports betting dressed up as investing.” The regulator also urged NCPG to remove references to Michigan’s affiliation, ended employee participation in NCPG committees and canceled a paid sponsorship for the group’s annual conference. That action, detailed in Michigan’s decision to cut ties with NCPG over Kalshi, turned criticism of the partnership into an operational problem for the nonprofit.

The Ohio Casino Control Commission and the Nevada Council on Problem Gambling also withdrew their memberships, signaling that the backlash was not confined to one state. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission chose to remain a member, but its chair said the matter could be revisited at renewal. That response underscored the dilemma for public agencies: NCPG remains a central forum for problem gambling policy, but affiliation with the group now carries political risk in states actively challenging Kalshi or similar platforms.

Kalshi’s NCPG deal followed a wave of scrutiny

Kalshi’s original move into NCPG was presented as a responsible-market initiative. The company said its funding would support research into behavioral risks tied to prediction markets and help develop consumer protections. In Kalshi’s announcement that it had joined NCPG, the company positioned itself as a financial trading marketplace rather than a traditional betting platform. But the announcement also effectively acknowledged that prediction markets can carry risks similar to wagering, especially when contracts are tied to sports, politics or culture.

That dual message fueled suspicion among state officials. If prediction markets require responsible gambling-style tools, regulators asked, why should they be exempt from gambling oversight? Kalshi’s answer has been that federal commodities law governs its exchange and that event contracts are not state-regulated wagers. States including Wisconsin, Michigan, Missouri and Utah have pushed back, arguing that federal registration should not permit sports-betting products to bypass licensing, taxation and consumer rules imposed on sportsbooks.

NCPG’s long-standing posture complicated matters. The organization has worked with gambling operators, regulators and advocacy groups while saying its mission is harm reduction rather than legal enforcement. Its programs include standards, training, public awareness and accreditation. That model depends on broad participation across competing sectors. Kalshi’s membership tested whether the same approach could extend to companies whose legal status is contested by many of NCPG’s own public-sector members.

Prediction markets are reshaping gambling alliances

The Kalshi dispute is part of a larger realignment. The American Gaming Association has opposed the expansion of prediction markets, arguing that their sports products resemble sportsbook offerings while avoiding the state regulatory system that casinos and online betting companies use. That stance created friction with major operators entering the prediction market space. DraftKings and FanDuel left the AGA after deciding to pursue prediction markets, a split that showed how quickly commercial incentives are changing industry alliances.

Their departure, covered in DraftKings’ and FanDuel’s exit from the American Gaming Association, matters for NCPG because it shows that prediction markets are no longer a niche legal fight involving one exchange. The largest U.S. sports betting companies see value in federally regulated event contracts, particularly because those products could reach customers in states where sports betting remains illegal or restricted. That raises the stakes for state regulators, tribal gaming interests and responsible gambling advocates.

For NCPG, the growing overlap between trading and betting expands the scope of its mission while straining its relationships. If prediction markets become a mainstream consumer product, harm-prevention organizations will likely need to engage with them. But accepting industry money before legal and regulatory questions are settled can create the perception that advocacy groups are helping normalize disputed products. Maurer’s resignation landed at that intersection of policy necessity and reputational risk.

CFTC oversight adds another layer of complexity

Federal oversight has not quieted concerns. Kalshi recently sought CFTC approval to allow margin trading on some event contracts, a change that would let eligible traders use borrowed funds. The company said the proposal would not apply to sports, culture or “mention” markets, but the request highlighted the potential for prediction markets to evolve toward more complex financial products. As described in Kalshi’s request for CFTC approval of margin trading, fully collateralized contracts could eventually sit alongside leveraged products for certain users.

The CFTC also issued an advisory on “mention” markets, warning that contracts based on whether a person says certain words or takes certain actions may be vulnerable to manipulation. That warning reinforced a core concern for regulators and consumer advocates: event contracts can create incentives that differ from traditional financial markets and conventional gambling. Settlement may depend on discrete human behavior, sports results or public events that are difficult for consumers to assess.

NCPG has called for safeguards such as age verification, self-exclusion, risk disclosures and responsible-engagement tools. Those measures resemble protections used in regulated online gambling. The more prediction markets adopt similar tools, the more the practical distinction between trading and wagering comes under scrutiny. Yet without such tools, harm-prevention groups risk leaving consumers exposed in a fast-growing market.

A broader credibility challenge for harm prevention

NCPG’s work extends beyond prediction markets. The group has accredited operators through its Internet Compliance Assessment Program, including daily fantasy sports company PrizePicks. In PrizePicks’ responsible gambling accreditation from NCPG, the organization assessed staff training, customer support, know-your-customer protocols, consumer tools and regulatory compliance. That type of work gives NCPG influence across products that sit near the boundaries of gambling law.

The Kalshi controversy threatens that convening role. Public agencies, operators and treatment advocates depend on NCPG as a neutral forum, but neutrality is more difficult when funding comes from a company fighting multiple state regulators. Maurer’s exit, following the earlier departure of programs director Jaime Costello, leaves the organization to manage a leadership transition while defending its approach to an emerging sector.

The next executive director will inherit more than an internal governance challenge. NCPG must decide how to study and influence prediction markets without alienating members that view those same markets as illegal gambling. The outcome will shape not only the organization’s credibility, but also how responsible gambling standards are applied as sports betting, daily fantasy, financial trading and event contracts continue to converge.