iGaming Ontario shelved problem gambling study, Toronto Star records show

The Toronto Star reported, based on freedom of information records, that iGaming Ontario shelved a problem gambling study after early results came back significantly higher than expected. Yogonet relayed that report on 19 October 2026. The records were heavily redacted and the research findings were withheld entirely, so the size of the gap is not public.

The central decision was not to publish. The agency commissioned the study from the Responsible Gambling Council before the April 2022 market launch and had pledged to release the findings as a baseline. According to the reported records, executives questioned the results, debated the use of online survey panels, which can produce higher problem gambling estimates, and discussed adding a telephone sample. Officials also discussed a possible "gag order" and legal advice on whether researchers held copies of the data. iGaming Ontario says methodological concerns meant the study did not meet the standard needed to inform policy. The RGC says its contract gave the agency ownership of the findings and control over publication.

The question that was skipped is who bears the cost of not knowing. Ontarians wagered more than $82.7 billion in 2024-25, and the province has not publicly studied how legalisation and advertising affected problem gambling, despite rising help-line calls. Neither organisation has disclosed what the research cost taxpayers.

Analysis: the contract's publication-control clause, more than the methodology dispute, appears to have decided whether the public saw the result. A regulator that can withhold a commissioned baseline is also one that can define what counts as a valid result after the fact. That is a governance problem whatever the findings show.

Open uncertainty: we have not seen the records, so the "unexpected" characterisation and the gag-order language rest on The Star's reporting. Whether the telephone-sample check was ever run is unclear. If the findings, once released, show the methodology concern was material, the agency's caution looks more defensible. If the dispute was resolved by suppression, the case is about oversight.