Kalshi has joined the National Council on Problem Gambling with a $2 million, two-year pledge for trader health and safety work. The prediction market operator is becoming the first member of NCPG’s new Financial Services & Trading category.
The partnership gives Kalshi a direct connection to a major U.S. problem gambling group while it continues to reject the sportsbook label. That tension is now part of the wider policy debate around prediction markets.
New category avoids the gambling label
NCPG’s new category is built for financial services and trading businesses rather than traditional gambling operators. Kalshi is joining at Platinum level, the council’s highest membership tier.
The funding will support education, research and awareness work around prediction market participation. A needs assessment will also look at how users interact with event-contract platforms and where risk controls may be needed.
Kalshi has described the effort as responsible trading, while state gambling regulators continue to argue that sports contracts can look and function like sports betting.
Sports markets expose the gap
Kalshi offers markets on politics, economics, weather, entertainment and sports. Its sports contracts have brought the most legal pressure, with several states trying to apply gambling laws to products listed on a federally regulated exchange.
That has created a policy gap. If sports-event contracts are treated only as financial products, they may not face the same responsible gambling, advertising, tax and licensing rules applied to sportsbooks.
If states control them as gambling, prediction market operators argue that federal commodities regulation is being overridden. Courts have reached different answers, leaving platforms, regulators and customers without one clear national rule.
Helpline and tools remain open questions
The NCPG partnership raises practical questions about what users will see on Kalshi itself. Problem gambling helplines, self-exclusion links and responsible play tools are common across licensed sportsbooks, but prediction markets have not followed one standard model.
One issue is language. A platform that describes users as traders may be less likely to use gambling terms, even when consumer-risk concerns overlap with betting behaviour. NCPG’s needs assessment could help shape those tools. It may also give regulators and lawmakers more evidence on whether prediction market safeguards should mirror sportsbook protections or follow a separate financial-trading model.
