Ontario government reviewing rise in sports betting and gambling advertisements

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

Ontario’s review follows a rapid expansion of legal betting

Ontario’s decision to review the rise in sports betting and gambling advertising reflects a broader regulatory reckoning that has followed the legalization and commercialization of online wagering in major markets. The province opened its regulated igaming market in 2022, creating one of North America’s most active legal betting sectors and giving licensed operators a channel to compete directly with offshore sites that had long served Canadian customers.

The policy trade-off was clear from the start. Regulation promised consumer protections, tax revenue and oversight of companies that previously operated in a gray market. But legal status also gave betting brands access to mainstream advertising, including sports broadcasts, digital platforms and sponsorship channels. That exposure has since become a political issue, especially as public health advocates connect ubiquitous marketing with higher participation among younger adults.

Ontario has already moved to restrict some promotional practices, including barring celebrities and athletes from most gambling advertisements unless the message is tied to responsible gambling. The latest review signals that the province may go further, even after lawmakers rejected a proposed statutory ban on igaming commercials. The government’s position now appears to be that the market’s growth requires continued oversight, rather than a return to prohibition.

Public health concerns are moving into the center of gambling policy

The debate in Ontario has sharpened as problem-gambling indicators have worsened. A reported 300% increase in gambling-related calls to ConnexOntario from January 2012 to September 2025 has given political weight to arguments that advertising is not merely a consumer choice issue. Critics say the marketing environment has normalized betting in the same way tobacco advertising once embedded smoking in sports, entertainment and social life.

That framing is gaining traction internationally. In the Philippines, former anti-corruption official Nicasio Conti urged the government to ban advertising for online gambling platforms, saying digital wagering should be treated as a public health issue rather than a private vice. His warning, outlined in a call for a Philippine ban on online gambling advertisements, focused on the convergence of 24-hour access, influencer promotion and e-wallet payments. Those factors, he argued, make online gambling especially risky for young people and financially vulnerable consumers.

Ontario’s review sits within the same shift. Governments that once emphasized licensing, consumer choice and revenue are now being pressed to account for behavioral harms that can emerge quickly in app-based betting environments. Sports wagering, in particular, has changed the rhythm of gambling by turning individual plays, live odds and in-game outcomes into bettable events. That makes advertising more than a brand-awareness tool; it can also prompt immediate transactions during games.

Sports betting has changed the risk profile

The clearest evidence of those risks has emerged in jurisdictions where sports betting was recently legalized. In Maryland, a 2024 survey found that disordered gambling had increased after the state launched sports betting, with nearly two in five bettors showing signs of addiction or risky behavior. The state recorded a 42% rise in adults showing signs of problem gambling since sports betting began statewide in November 2022, according to the Maryland problem-gambling data reported after legalization.

The Maryland experience is relevant for Ontario because both markets illustrate how mobile sports betting can accelerate harm among younger men. Counselors there reported more calls after legalization, with particular concern about men ages 18 to 34 reaching problematic behavior faster than in previous gambling eras. Maryland’s response has included gambling awareness education in schools, an acknowledgment that prevention must begin before people reach legal betting age.

Ontario officials have voiced similar concern about young men as online gambling expands. That demographic is heavily targeted through sports media, streaming content and social platforms where betting is integrated into commentary, odds segments and influencer-driven promotions. The result is a marketing ecosystem that can blur the line between sports fandom and financial risk-taking.

For regulators, the key question is whether existing responsible-gambling disclaimers are enough. If advertising drives participation and participation increases harm, then advertising rules become a primary tool of consumer protection. That is the logic behind calls for tougher limits, even in jurisdictions that remain committed to legal regulated markets.

Other markets are tightening ad controls without fully banning betting

Governments and platforms are increasingly pursuing a middle path: allowing legal wagering while limiting how aggressively it can be promoted. In Brazil, the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting joined with the National Council for Advertising Self-Regulation to improve monitoring of fixed-odds betting ads. The agreement, described in coverage of Brazil’s strengthened oversight of betting advertisements, aims to identify illegal marketing, repeat offenders and ads that reach children or encourage harmful behavior.

Brazil’s model is notable because it pairs government enforcement with advertising self-regulation, a structure designed to move faster than court actions or legislation alone. That approach may appeal to jurisdictions such as Ontario, where a full advertising ban failed but public pressure for stronger intervention remains. A coordinated framework could allow regulators to target the most harmful content, including misleading promotions, youth-facing creative and advertisements for unlicensed operators.

Australia has taken a more direct approach in public spaces. New South Wales began removing casino and sports betting advertisements from trains, buses, ferries, stations and other parts of the transport network. The state’s move to ban gambling advertisements across public transport was framed as a harm-reduction measure, particularly for children and families who cannot avoid exposure in shared civic spaces.

That distinction matters for Ontario. Broadcast and digital advertising remain the highest-profile battlegrounds, but gambling promotions also appear in arenas, transit settings, podcasts and social feeds. A review could therefore consider not just whether ads should be allowed, but where and when they appear and who is likely to see them.

Digital platforms are becoming de facto gambling regulators

Private technology companies are also reshaping the advertising landscape. Google Ads has said it will ban rummy and daily fantasy sports advertisements in India from Jan. 21, 2026, across campaigns directed at Indian audiences. The decision, covered in the company’s India gambling and fantasy sports advertising policy update, aligns the platform’s rules with domestic regulatory expectations under the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025.

The Google action shows how platform policy can have effects similar to legislation. Operators, affiliates and publishers that rely on paid search and display advertising can lose a major customer-acquisition channel if a platform tightens its rules. In markets where gambling regulation is complex or unsettled, companies such as Google may choose conservative policies to reduce legal and reputational risk.

For Ontario, the role of platforms raises a practical enforcement issue. Even if provincial rules restrict content, much gambling advertising is bought and delivered through global digital networks. Effective oversight may require cooperation among regulators, broadcasters, sports leagues, social media companies and ad-tech intermediaries. Otherwise, stricter rules on licensed operators could be undermined by offshore sites or affiliate marketers using digital channels to reach consumers.

The stakes now extend beyond advertising volume

Ontario’s review is about more than the number of commercials during a hockey or basketball broadcast. It is a test of how mature gambling markets adapt when early assumptions about legalization meet evidence of harm. Regulators must preserve the advantages of a legal market — including age verification, responsible-gambling tools and enforcement against illegal operators — while limiting the promotional intensity that can expand risky behavior.

The political challenge is that advertising restrictions affect multiple powerful industries at once: betting operators, media companies, sports leagues and technology platforms. Gambling ads have become a revenue source for broadcasters and teams at a time when traditional media business models are under pressure. Any broad restriction could shift spending to less visible digital channels or reduce revenue for partners that have built betting into their commercial plans.

Still, the direction of travel is increasingly clear. From Maryland’s post-legalization harm data to New South Wales’ public transport ban and Brazil’s joint enforcement model, governments are moving from market creation to market correction. Ontario’s next step will show whether it intends to rely on targeted restrictions and industry compliance or pursue a more sweeping reduction in the public visibility of gambling.

The outcome will likely influence other Canadian provinces watching Ontario’s experiment. As the country’s most prominent regulated igaming market, Ontario has become a reference point for both industry growth and the backlash to sports betting promotion. Its review may determine how far a legal market can expand before advertising itself becomes the next frontier of gambling regulation.