iGaming Ontario gambling study raises transparency questions
iGaming Ontario is facing renewed scrutiny over transparency after records revealed that the agency decided against publishing a problem gambling study commissioned before the province opened its regulated online gambling market in April 2022.
The research was intended to establish a baseline for measuring gambling-related harm and help inform responsible gambling policies. However, internal documents obtained through a Toronto Star investigation indicate that officials questioned the study after its initial findings showed problem gambling rates above expectations.
The unpublished research has raised questions about how gambling-related evidence is assessed, communicated and used in public policy. iGaming Ontario has maintained that the study did not meet the standard required to inform policy development.
The findings themselves remain unavailable to the public, leaving important questions about the research and the agency’s decision unresolved.
iGaming Ontario gambling study remains unpublished
The iGaming Ontario gambling study was commissioned ahead of the launch of Ontario’s regulated online market. The Responsible Gambling Council was selected to conduct the two-year longitudinal project, which was designed to follow participants across multiple waves of data collection.
The first survey wave took place in February 2022, approximately two months before the market opened. Its purpose was to establish a baseline against which researchers could assess gambling behaviour and potential harm as the regulated sector developed.
According to records described in the Toronto Star investigation, the initial results differed substantially from other research. Internal notes indicated that officials were concerned about the reported rates and questioned the reliability of the findings.
The agency subsequently considered changing the methodology for a later survey wave. One proposal involved introducing telephone interviews alongside online survey panels, with the aim of determining whether the sampling method influenced the results.
Such methodological questions can be legitimate in research. Different recruitment methods may produce different participant profiles, and researchers must consider whether a sample accurately represents the wider population.
However, changing a study’s methodology after baseline findings emerge can also complicate comparisons between survey waves. Any adjustment requires careful justification and transparent documentation to preserve the research’s credibility.
The central issue is therefore not simply whether officials questioned the findings, but how those concerns were handled and whether the resulting decisions were adequately explained.
Researchers raised concerns over changes to the methodology
The project involved academics Iris Balodis of McMaster University and Michael Wohl of Carleton University. In a joint statement reported by the Toronto Star, the researchers said their participation was based on an explicit condition that the findings would be published.
The academics reportedly opposed changing the research approach midway through the project. Records indicate that they later parted ways with the Responsible Gambling Council and iGaming Ontario.
The disagreement highlights a broader challenge in commissioned research: maintaining a clear distinction between evaluating scientific quality and responding to findings that may be politically or institutionally uncomfortable.
Research methods should be open to scrutiny, particularly when studies are intended to guide public policy. At the same time, methodological concerns should be assessed through documented, defensible processes rather than assumptions about what the results ought to show.
The available reporting does not establish that the study’s findings were accurate or that the proposed methodological changes were necessarily inappropriate. Because the underlying report has not been released, independent researchers cannot fully assess its design, limitations or conclusions.
That absence of evidence makes transparency particularly important. Publishing the report alongside a detailed explanation of any methodological shortcomings would allow specialists to evaluate the work independently.
Internal records raise questions about disclosure
The controversy extends beyond the disagreement over survey methods. According to the records described in the investigation, internal discussions in 2023 included questions about whether researchers might be prevented from speaking publicly about the project.
The notes also referred to the possibility of sharing data with the academics to limit potential criticism. The reporting did not establish that either researcher had leaked the study’s findings.
The documents further indicate that iGaming Ontario engaged a public relations firm in 2023 to assist with communications concerning the research.
A draft of the final report reportedly reached the agency in August 2024. Notes dated January 2025 indicate that a decision had been made not to release it, with a reference to upcoming election considerations appearing in a redacted section of the records.
These details have intensified questions about the reasons behind the decision. However, the complete context of the internal discussions remains unclear because portions of the documents are withheld.
iGaming Ontario told the Toronto Star that the study did not meet the standard required to inform policy development. The agency has not publicly released the full findings, and the research cost has not been disclosed in the reporting.
The newspaper has appealed to Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner for access to additional records.
Ontario’s growing online gambling market increases the stakes
The dispute comes as Ontario’s regulated online gambling sector has expanded considerably since its April 2022 launch.
According to figures cited in the investigation, players wagered C$82.7 billion through online gambling platforms during the 2024–25 fiscal year. Wagering volume does not represent gambling revenue or the amount lost by players, but it illustrates the scale of activity taking place within the market.
The size of the sector makes reliable evidence about gambling-related harm particularly relevant to regulators, researchers and policymakers.
A study designed to establish pre-launch conditions could have helped inform assessments of how gambling behaviour changed as the market developed. Without public access to its results, however, independent observers cannot determine what conclusions the research supports or how it might contribute to future policy.
Other research has also added to the debate over gambling-related harm. A September 2026 announcement from the research institute ICES reported that emergency department visits associated with gambling disorders nearly doubled following the expansion of Ontario’s online gambling market and the introduction of single-event sports betting.
That research addresses a different question from the unpublished baseline study. Its findings should not be treated as proof of what the withheld research found, nor do they independently establish the precise causes of the observed increase.
Nevertheless, the wider evidence reinforces the importance of assessing gambling-related risks through transparent, independently scrutinised research.
Transparency remains central to responsible gambling policy
The unresolved study raises practical questions for Ontario’s approach to responsible gambling. Public access to research allows academics, health professionals and policymakers to examine evidence, challenge assumptions and assess whether existing safeguards respond to the risks identified.
If a commissioned study has substantial methodological weaknesses, releasing its findings with an explanation of those limitations can help distinguish reliable conclusions from uncertain results. Independent review can also identify whether further research is needed.
Conversely, withholding a report without a sufficiently detailed public explanation can make it harder to evaluate the basis for regulatory decisions and may weaken confidence in the research process.
The next developments will depend partly on the privacy commissioner’s consideration of the outstanding records request and whether further information becomes available about the study’s methodology, findings and cancellation.
For now, the underlying results remain undisclosed, and iGaming Ontario’s explanation for withholding the report has not resolved all the questions raised by the documents.
The case highlights a fundamental issue for a rapidly expanding regulated gambling market: responsible gambling policy depends not only on the safeguards operators provide, but also on credible evidence, transparent decision-making and public accountability.
About Asia Casino News
Asia Casino News covers developments across the casino, iGaming, betting, regulation and gaming industries in Asia and international markets. Our coverage follows the legal, regulatory and commercial changes shaping the global gambling industry. Visit Asia Casino News for more industry news, analysis and gambling guides.
Sources
Casinocom
Comments