Pennsylvania: Prediction Markets Fueling Problem Gambling Among Young People
Posted on: December 17, 2025, 01:38h.
Last updated on: December 17, 2025, 02:13h.
- Pennsylvania is experiencing a surge in problem gambling among younger people
- A top responsible gaming advocate in the commonwealth blames prediction markets
The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (PGCB) and the Council on Compulsive Gambling of Pennsylvania both testified before the state’s House Gaming Oversight Committee on Tuesday regarding an immediate need for the General Assembly to act on controversial prediction markets.
Prediction markets facilitate the buying and selling of shares on various event outcomes, including sports and binary yes/no contracts. Gaming regulators, attorneys general, and state lawmakers across the country have declared prediction markets, specifically, those offering sports event contracts, as illegal gambling.
Josh Ercole, the executive director of the Council on Compulsive Gambling of Pennsylvania, says his agency is experiencing a rush of intake calls since prediction markets exploded in recent years. He says that in November, for the first time ever, the highest number of calls to 1-800-GAMBLER came from the 18- to 24-year-old demographic.
The responsible gaming advocate noted that historically, the 30- to 40-year-old segment has accounted for the greatest number of calls.
We are in a completely different world,” Ercole declared.
“Unlike Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board-licensed operators, these prediction market platforms are not required to provide the robust number of consumer protection tools that are mandated by state legislation. Because they’re identified as financial instruments [by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission], the minimum age to participate is often 18,” Ercole continued.
[Prediction markets] expose a highly vulnerable demographic to an activity that has inherent risks associated with it,” Ercole added. “Over the past several years, we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of younger folks contacting the helpline.”
Ercole’s Council on Compulsive Gambling of Pennsylvania is the recognized Pennsylvania affiliate of the National Council on Problem Gambling. The council doesn’t support or oppose gaming, but lobbies for the development and expansion of comprehensive policies to help support problem gamblers.
Chief Gaming Regulator Testifies
PGCB Chair Kevin O’Toole testified that prediction markets threaten the integrity of the commonwealth’s highly regulated gaming industry.
“Prediction markets or event contracts are a contemporary evolution of a very old tool. We readily acknowledge the historical and legitimate use of futures markets for commodities trading, a process designed for risk management, allowing producers, consumers, and businesses to hedge against the volatile future price of agricultural products, metals, and energy,” O’Toole said. “However, the nature, scope, and scale of these new platforms have shifted dramatically.”
The PGCB chair said operators like Kalshi and Polymarket have moved “far beyond” the historical scope of derivative trading and hedging, essentially facilitating high-volume wagering “that operates entirely outside of Pennsylvania’s comprehensive consumer protection, responsible gaming, and tax framework.”
The chair concluded by saying the emergence of prediction markets in the commonwealth has resulted in a “dual-track system” where one track is highly regulated and the other is the “wild west.”
The Board’s position, consistent with warnings we have delivered to federal authorities, is that these markets are deeply problematic,” O’Toole continued, before handing the presentation to Steve Cook, the PGCB’s chief counsel.
Prediction markets claim they operate lawfully under federal oversight, pointing to Designated Contract Market and Derivatives Clearing Organization licenses from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
The CFTC has failed to enforce the Commodity Exchange Act’s prohibition on futures trading in the area of gaming,” said Cook. “We’re observing a form of regulatory arbitrage, where federal preemption is stretched beyond its intended purpose to shield operators from state police powers.”
Many members of the House Gaming Oversight Committee seemed receptive to the testimony and likely to act when the legislature convenes in January.
No comments yet