Massachusetts Regulator Tells House Prediction Markets Sell Banned College Props

Jordan Maynard used a House hearing on campus gambling to say event contract platforms offer the college player props Massachusetts prohibits, to anyone over 18. The three campus health witnesses asked Congress mostly for research money, screening and data.

• Massachusetts Gaming Commission chair Jordan Maynard said in written testimony to a House subcommittee on 11 November that prediction markets offer college player prop bets in Massachusetts, where they are banned
• The hearing, previewed by iGT on 9 November, heard from Maynard and three campus health and prevention specialists
• Ranking Member Alma Adams said prediction markets had "blown a hole straight through" state betting laws and that the federal regulator "seems to have left the beat"
• Two witnesses cited an NCAA survey in which 46% of Division I men's basketball players reported abuse from fans over betting losses, the problem the NCAA's Bad Actor Program targets
• The campus witnesses asked for federal research funds, screening and national data, and no written statement mentions the SAFE Bet Act

Maynard Says Event Contracts Undercut State Protections for College Athletes

The House Committee on Education and Workforce's Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development, chaired by Rep. Burgess Owens, held "The Rise of Sports Gambling on College Campuses" on Wednesday 11 November. The other witnesses were Lindsey Mortenson, Chief Mental Health Officer at the University of Michigan; Daniel Durkin, associate professor of social work at the University of Mississippi; and Cindy Clouner, who runs a campus prevention centre at The Ohio State University.

Maynard's written testimony sets out the Massachusetts rules: a minimum age of 21, no advertising on college campuses and no individual player props on any collegiate event. Maynard says age verification has stopped at least 11,000 account attempts by under-21s, and the commission's Bet on Respect programme can exclude bettors who harass athletes from every licensed sportsbook and casino.

The testimony argues that prediction markets bypass all of it: where Massachusetts has prohibited college player props, "prediction markets are offering these very wagers today," Maynard wrote, and on most platforms "anyone over 18 can create an account and gamble on sports." The testimony says the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) "is simply not equipped to or interested in regulating nationwide consumer sports betting markets," and notes that Kalshi is appealing the state's injunction against it to the Supreme Judicial Court. Maynard asked regulators "at all levels of government" to prohibit college player props and called state-based regulation "the appropriate model".

Adams Turns the Hearing Toward the CFTC

The majority's published opening statement came from Vice Chair Michael Baumgartner of Washington, who the committee says held the hearing. It puts regulated sportsbook wagering at $167 billion last year and says student-athletes are the only campus population required to receive gambling education. It mentions prediction market apps once and proposes no change to their regulation.

In an opening statement, Ranking Member Alma Adams of North Carolina said that when a student "can wager on a game from his phone, in a state that prohibits it, that is sports betting by another name." Adams noted the NCAA had asked the CFTC to suspend college sports prediction markets, and said colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee are investigating 1789 Capital, a firm Donald Trump Jr. joined as a partner after the 2024 election and which, Adams said, owned a piece of Polymarket. Calling these "questions under investigation", Adams asked for state enforcement powers to be restored and for "real age verification".

Campus Witnesses Ask for Data, Screening and Limits on Props

"We may be on pace to create the largest generation of problem gamblers in U.S. history," Mortenson wrote. Mortenson's proposals include minimum safety standards for people under 25, a ban on "higher risk bets on amateur athletes", stronger oversight of prediction markets and mandatory data sharing by operators with independent researchers.

Clouner cited an Oregon survey in which only 2% of students had ever been asked about gambling by a campus professional. Clouner said a patchwork of state prop bans "leaves college athletes exposed to cross-border harassment".

Durkin reported that among sports bettors in a spring 2025 survey of 1,595 Mississippi undergraduates, 56.6% had used an online sportsbook based in the US or Canada, though mobile betting is illegal in the state. Durkin also cited the NCAA's 2024 survey, in which individual player props among sports bettors on men's teams rose from 8% in 2016 to 38%, and pointed to the point-shaving prosecutions as evidence of coercion risk, and listed the GRIT Act, the Gambling Disorder Health Study Act and the POINTS Act, research and treatment bills, while endorsing none.

The College Prop Fight Has Moved From Sportsbooks to Exchanges

Massachusetts is among the states that have removed college player props from licensed books, and Maynard's testimony says the same bets have returned through federally registered exchanges with a lower minimum age. That puts a state regulator on record before Congress calling licensed sportsbooks the safer channel, a useful line for operators. Durkin added the counterweight: restrictions raise "questions of enforcement and possible displacement to unregulated markets", and the Mississippi survey data show students betting online where it is illegal.

The Asks Were Research Money, Not a Federal Betting Law

The three campus witnesses asked mainly for funding, surveillance and campus guidance, and the bills named are about research and treatment, not advertising or product rules. Mortenson's call for operators to share player data with researchers is the proposal with the most direct cost to the industry.

The written record shows broad agreement on campus prevention and a partisan divide on prediction markets. Any federal action on event contracts is more likely to come from the committees that oversee the CFTC than from this one.