ReadWriteWeb
Kalshi recorded more than $6 billion in combined trade volume over the weekend, with the NFL driving the bulk of the activity, according to data shared by TickerTracker. It’s the platform’s largest weekend on record, arriving just seven days after its previous best.
Saturday and Sunday each pushed past $3 billion in Kalshi volume on their own. Saturday came in at roughly $3 billion, with sports accounting for 26.2% of that activity and parlay-style combo contracts making up another 63.6%. Sunday added more than $3.1 billion. That tops the approximately $4.89 billion two-day record Kalshi had set just the prior weekend, a mark that already looked outsized before this one arrived.
The tells a similar story. Total contract volume across tracked platforms hit $7.64 billion for Saturday and Sunday combined, up 20% from $6.34 billion the previous weekend, per TickerTracker’s September 21 data. That figure spans all tracked operators, not Kalshi alone, but it underscores how much sports contracts have come to dominate the category since kickoff.
Record Growth Meets Legal Pressure
The volume numbers arrive alongside a rougher stretch in court and in statehouses. The Ninth Circuit recently ruled against Kalshi in a case brought by California tribes, reversing a lower-court decision that had denied the tribes preliminary relief – a setback that puts Kalshi’s sports contracts back under direct legal challenge on tribal lands.
Missouri has moved on a separate front. Attorney General Catherine Hanaway ordered several prediction-market operators, including Kalshi and Polymarket, to stop offering sports event contracts in the state unless they secure the required sports-wagering licenses. Cease-and-desist letters went out to Polymarket, Kalshi, Crypto.com, Novig, Underdog and Robinhood, putting a half-dozen operators on the same compliance clock at once.
Growth and Scrutiny, Side by Side
Prediction-market volume has climbed steadily since the NFL season opened, and this weekend’s numbers extend that run even as regulators close in. The hasn’t slowed the trading so far, but it does mean Kalshi and its rivals are setting records and fielding cease-and-desist letters in the same news cycle. Whether that holds depends largely on how courts and state regulators resolve the licensing question in the weeks ahead.
The post appeared first on .
The Ohio Casino Control Commission quietly withdrew its membership from the National Council on Problem Gambling in June, the commission confirmed to , becoming the third state gaming authority to cut ties with the council over its decision to admit prediction-market operator Kalshi.
The Ohio exit follows the same pattern set by the Michigan Gaming Control Board and the Nevada Council on Problem Gambling, both of which publicly withdrew over the summer citing Kalshi’s presence within the organization. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission, by contrast, recently weighed the same question and voted to stay – though members made clear the decision isn’t permanent.
Why Regulators Are Reassessing Ties to NCPG
The dispute centers on whether a national organization dedicated to problem-gambling advocacy can credibly maintain a paying member that multiple state regulators consider an unlicensed sportsbook operator. Michigan and Nevada made their objections public over the summer; Ohio’s departure only came to light when the Massachusetts Gaming Commission discussed its own membership status at a recent meeting, marking the first public acknowledgment of the OCCC’s move.
At stake for regulators is a question of consumer clarity: whether association with a group that counts Kalshi as a member creates confusion among consumers about whether prediction-market platforms carry the same protections as state-licensed sportsbooks. Ohio’s interim director argued directly that it does not, and framed the council’s posture as anything but neutral.
How Kalshi’s NCPG Membership Triggered the Objections
Kalshi joined the National Council on Problem Gambling in May 2026 following a $2 million investment spread over two years. To accommodate the company, the council created a new Financial Services & Trading Subcategory, through which Kalshi entered as a platinum member – the council’s top membership tier.
Ohio Casino Control Commission Interim Director Andromeda Morrison cited that membership directly as the reason for the OCCC’s withdrawal. In a letter to the NCPG, Morrison argued that the council’s actions were not neutral despite its stated position, and that by admitting Kalshi it was effectively working to legitimize what she described as an illegal sportsbook operating in Ohio while undercutting the commission’s efforts to shut down unlicensed gambling in the state. She wrote that the council appeared poised to go further by building a new membership class specifically for prediction-market companies.
Michigan Gaming Control Board Executive Director Henry Williams raised a related but distinct objection when his agency withdrew in July, becoming the first regulator to leave. Williams told the council that Michigan could no longer maintain the relationship while a prediction-market operator was also among its ranks, and pointed to Kalshi’s litigation against states as evidence the company was working to sidestep the consumer-protection safeguards Michigan and other states have built into their sports-betting regulations. That earlier dispute is detailed in .
Massachusetts Stays – For Now
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission took a different path. After reviewing the Michigan and Nevada withdrawals – and hearing publicly for the first time about Ohio’s earlier exit – the commission’s research and responsible gaming department recommended remaining in the council. Commissioners accepted that recommendation, voting 5-0 to stay.
The vote wasn’t a full endorsement. Commissioner Eileen O’Brien noted the overlap between what the commission regulates and the litigation surrounding prediction markets, and said she was comfortable accepting the recommendation for now but wanted the commission to keep watching the situation closely, adding that a point may come, possibly soon, when severing ties becomes necessary.
Commission Chairman Jordan Maynard was more pointed, telling colleagues the council should be put on notice. He said the commission wouldn’t change its values because an organization was taking money from a prediction-market company, and that the commission intended to hold the council accountable – suggesting the topic would likely resurface when the commission’s membership renewal comes around again.
A Pattern of Departures
The sequence is now fairly clear. Ohio withdrew first, in June, though that decision wasn’t publicly known until the Massachusetts meeting surfaced it. Michigan followed in July as the first regulator to announce its exit publicly. Nevada withdrew in August, citing both Kalshi’s NCPG membership and ongoing prediction-market litigation active in the state. Massachusetts then reviewed all three departures before choosing, for now, to remain.
Three state gaming authorities cutting ties with the same national advocacy organization inside a few months is a notable signal, even if Massachusetts’s decision to stay tempers the trend somewhat. It suggests the NCPG’s Kalshi membership has become a genuine liability in its relationships with the regulators it was built to work alongside, rather than a passing controversy.
What the Dispute Signals for Consumer Protection
The core objection from regulators isn’t abstract. Ohio’s Morrison framed the concern in terms of consumer confusion – the risk that association between a trusted problem-gambling organization and a prediction-market platform blurs the line for consumers trying to determine whether that platform carries the same regulatory protections as a licensed sportsbook. That question sits alongside broader scrutiny of Kalshi’s consumer-facing practices, including .
It also lands amid a wider push to formalize how problem gambling is recognized and treated, including . Regulators like Michigan’s Williams have tied their objections directly to Kalshi’s litigation against states seeking to enforce licensing and consumer-protection rules, arguing that continued NCPG affiliation with the company undermines the very safeguards state gaming commissions are charged with upholding.
What Comes Next
Massachusetts says it will keep evaluating its NCPG membership as the situation develops, rather than treating the 5-0 vote as a closed matter. Maynard’s comments point to the commission’s next membership renewal as a likely moment for the issue to resurface, though the commission hasn’t set a specific date or scheduled a formal review beyond that.
For now, the split leaves the NCPG with three fewer state regulatory members than it had at the start of the summer, and at least one more – Massachusetts – watching closely enough that a fourth departure isn’t out of the question.
The post appeared first on .
Both chambers of the New York Legislature have approved bill A10329, sending it to Gov. Kathy Hochul for review. If she signs it, regulated sportsbooks operating in the state would be required to send players monthly account statements starting Jan. 1, 2027.
The bill would make New York the first US state to mandate this kind of recurring disclosure for sports bettors, according to the primary reporting on the measure.
What the Statements Would Cover
Under the bill, sportsbooks would have to send customers a monthly summary covering deposits, wagers, winnings, and losses, along with net win or loss and total wagers for the period. The statements would also list time spent on the platform, any bonuses or credits applied to the account, and information on responsible-gambling tools.
Operators would additionally need to give customers access to their betting history. The stated goal is straightforward: give bettors a clearer way to track their own activity and catch early signs of problem gambling before it escalates. The bill would not change the tax revenue New York collects from legal sports betting – it’s a disclosure requirement, not a fiscal one.
How the Bill Got Here
The Assembly signed off on A10329 before the Senate took it up. The Senate then passed the measure unanimously, and no lawmakers voted against it at any point during the review process – a rare show of consensus for gambling-related legislation in a state that has previously clashed with operators over how they market to bettors, and separately battled prediction-market platforms over what counts as legal wagering, as seen in a in the state.
With Senate approval secured, the bill moved to Hochul’s desk, where it now sits awaiting her signature or veto.
Why This Matters for Bettors
The practical shift for players is less about new protections baked into the platforms themselves and more about visibility: instead of relying solely on in-app history that operators control and design, bettors would get a regular, standardized record of their own activity delivered to them directly.
That kind of transparency has been a recurring flashpoint in sports betting. Sportsbooks have faced scrutiny over how they use behavioral data to target promotions, an issue raised in reporting on , and over how operators manage high-value customers, which drew . A mandated monthly statement wouldn’t stop targeted marketing, but it would give bettors a harder data point to weigh against it.
What Happens Next
The immediate question is whether Hochul signs the bill. New York’s gambling regulators have not publicly detailed how they’ll handle rollout, so operators and bettors alike are left waiting on both the governor’s decision and the state’s follow-through on implementation.
If she signs, the Jan. 1, 2027 start date gives sportsbooks roughly a year to build out the reporting infrastructure. For now, A10329 remains one signature away from reshaping how New York’s regulated operators talk to their customers about money.
The post appeared first on .
VGW, the operator behind Chumba Casino, LuckyLand Casino, and Global Poker, has escalated its political spending in Alabama, donating $100,000 to US Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s gubernatorial campaign on top of an earlier $30,000 contribution this year.
The combined $130,000 in direct donations, disclosed in September campaign finance filings, makes Alabama one of the clearest examples of VGW’s strategy of funding candidates in states where the legal status of sweepstakes-style gaming remains unsettled. Tuberville has not publicly commented on VGW’s business model, and the company’s payment should not be read as a sign that he intends to back sweepstakes-friendly legislation.
VGW’s spending in the state extends past the governor’s race. Disclosures show the company has also funneled money into political action committees and state legislative candidates, generally favoring contenders with strong odds of winning — a pattern consistent with trying to build goodwill with lawmakers ahead of any future gambling debate.
Alabama’s Regulatory Vacuum
Alabama has never implemented a comprehensive gambling framework, leaving sweepstakes casinos in a legal gray zone that VGW appears eager to influence before lawmakers act. Tuberville has previously said the legislature should decide gambling policy, including the possibility of sending the question to voters as a referendum, but no gambling bill is currently before lawmakers.
That absence of active legislation makes the timing of VGW’s contributions notable. The company seems to be positioning itself early, well before any bill materializes, in a state where the rules governing its product could still be written from scratch.
Mounting Legal Pressure Elsewhere
The Alabama spending comes as VGW contends with rising legal exposure nationally. In August, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed a lawsuit against VGW and related entities, alleging the company’s sweepstakes products amount to illegal online gambling dressed up as social casino play. That case, detailed further in , remains ongoing.
VGW has also faced legal challenges in Kentucky, part of a broader pattern of state-level actions targeting sweepstakes operators, as . The company’s regulatory troubles have coincided with leadership turnover at the top, following .
Different states have reached different conclusions about where VGW’s dual-currency model fits within existing gambling law, and some have banned sweepstakes casinos outright. Alabama’s continued inaction leaves the door open, which is precisely why VGW appears to be spending heavily there now rather than waiting for a bill to take shape.
The post appeared first on .
DraftKings’ continued push into prediction markets could cost the company its tribal sportsbook partnerships, according to Indian Gaming Association Chair Victor Rocha, who predicts the operator will suffer once sports event contracts lose their current legal footing. Rocha’s forecast, delivered in blunt terms to Gaming America, frames DraftKings’ as a direct threat to relationships built over years of state-by-state tribal dealmaking.
DraftKings runs online and retail sports betting through tribal agreements in Connecticut, Arizona and Washington state – three states that have each pushed back hard against prediction markets. Ahead of this NFL season, DraftKings launched a campaign declaring its app live in all 50 states, explicitly targeting jurisdictions without legal sports betting, including Texas and California.
In California, DraftKings has spent time courting tribal goodwill to advance a legal sports-betting framework. That goodwill appears to have evaporated since the company went all-in on prediction markets, particularly after the Ninth Circuit sided with two California tribes in their case against Kalshi. Rocha said he expects more tribal lawsuits to follow, and CNIGA Chair James Siva said his organization is tracking which sportsbook operators have moved into prediction markets and which, like BetMGM, have stayed out.
A Legal Record Tilting Against Kalshi
The litigation landscape has shifted since a divided Third Circuit panel initially sided with Kalshi in a 2-1 ruling. Since then, courts have moved the other way – the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in favor of the California tribes was the latest in what Rocha described as an unbroken run of decisions favoring states and tribes, a trend he said validates the argument that classifying prediction markets as swaps undermines both state and tribal sovereignty.
New Jersey has since petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Third Circuit’s decision, while Robinhood and Crypto.com – allies of Kalshi through the Coalition for Prediction Markets – have petitioned for review of the Ninth Circuit ruling instead. Kalshi has asked for a 30-day extension to respond to New Jersey’s petition, pushing its deadline to November 9.
Tribes Split On Strategy
Not every tribe views prediction markets as the enemy. The Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana became the first tribe to formally announce a deal with Kalshi, initially focused on software for trading event contracts, with the parties leaving open whether sports markets would eventually be included. Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour argued that tribal entrepreneurship and a regulated national infrastructure don’t have to be at odds, suggesting one doesn’t need to lose for the other to win.
CNIGA pushed back, acknowledging that individual tribes can make their own business calls but insisting that doesn’t make illegal gaming legal. The split illustrates that tribal responses to prediction markets are far from unified – a dynamic explored further in about the industry’s expansion, and in .
What Comes Next
Nevada’s response to the Ninth Circuit petition is due in mid-October, setting up a busy fall of Supreme Court filings that could determine whether sports event contracts survive as a category at all. Rocha expects Kalshi to keep operating in non-sports markets regardless of the outcome.
For DraftKings, the stakes are framed as a fork: if sports contracts are ultimately approved, the company could abandon tribal partnerships altogether and lean into prediction markets; if they’re prohibited, as Rocha predicts, DraftKings risks being caught without either path secured. Both scenarios remain forecasts tied to litigation still working its way toward the Supreme Court, not settled outcomes.
The post appeared first on .