Minnesota senator urges NCPG to end Kalshi partnership
The criticism follows Michigan regulators’ decision to cut ties with the National Council on Problem Gambling over its relationship with the prediction market platform.
US.- The relationship between the National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) and Kalshi continues to draw criticism from regulators and lawmakers in the United States. After the Michigan Gaming Control Board (MGCB) cut ties with the organisation, Minnesota state Senator John Marty has called on the council to revoke the prediction market operator’s membership.
In a letter to NCPG Executive Director Heather Maurer, Marty spoke of an “unholy alliance”. He urged the NCPG to remove Kalshi, arguing that no financial contribution could justify compromising the council’s mission to promote safer gambling and protect people at risk.
Kalshi pledged $2m to support the NCPG’s research and educational initiatives on problem gambling in the United States and internationally. However, some have deemed membership of the NCPG contradictory for company that claims its products are not gambling.
The MGCB accused Kalshi of attempting to bypass established gambling regulations and reshape the regulatory landscape in a way that benefits its own business. Marty echoed those concerns in his letter. The Minnesota senator also questioned how the NCPG describes Kalshi’s business, arguing that the organisation’s profile of the company does not mention sports betting despite a significant source of the platform’s revenue being sports event contracts. Marty rejected Kalshi’s position that prediction market contracts should not be considered gambling.
“Claiming something is legal doesn’t mean it is legal and certainly does not mean that they legalised it. They are suing Minnesota, when our law explicitly treats it as illegal,” the senator wrote.
“Contrary to the statement, instead of ‘building a safe, legal, regulated platform,’ Kalshi is opposing all state regulations, claiming federal preemption”.
Kalshi continues to face legal and regulatory challenges in several jurisdictions, including Washington, Massachusetts, Nevada and New York, with state authorities claiming that prediction market contracts on sporting events should be treated as gambling.
