A withheld problem gambling study has put Ontario's regulated iGaming market under uncomfortable scrutiny, with the head of the country's leading gaming industry body warning that the episode threatens the credibility the sector has spent years building. Paul Burns, president and CEO of the Canadian Gaming Association, says a *Toronto Star* investigation into iGaming Ontario's handling of research commissioned before the province's 2022 market launch exposes a gap between stated commitments to transparency and actual regulatory practice.
What the Investigation Found
According to the *Star*, documents obtained through freedom of information requests show iGaming Ontario commissioned the Responsible Gambling Council to study problem gambling rates ahead of the province opening its regulated online market. The agency had earlier signaled it would make the findings public. It did not. Internal records reportedly show iGO raised concerns about the study's methodology, concluding it fell short of the standard needed to guide policy. Whatever the merits of that technical judgment, the optics are difficult: a government-linked body sat on gambling-harm research just as a new regulated market was preparing to open to consumers.
The scale of the redactions has fueled further criticism. Of more than 1,750 pages identified as potentially relevant to the FOI request, the material eventually released to the newspaper was heavily blacked out, with researchers' findings obscured and hundreds of pages withheld outright. iGaming Ontario has said disclosure of certain records could harm the province's economic interests - a justification that satisfies legal requirements for withholding information but does little to reassure a public already uneasy about gambling expansion.
Why Trust Matters in a Regulated Market
Ontario's model, launched in 2022, was pitched as a template for responsible, transparent regulation: licensed operators, consumer protection standards, and oversight meant to channel existing gambling activity away from unregulated offshore sites. That pitch depends on public confidence that the regulator is acting in players' interests, not shielding uncomfortable data. Burns frames the issue in exactly these terms, arguing that an industry built on trust cannot afford to be seen hiding research, regardless of the technical reasons offered.
The stakes extend beyond reputation. Policymaking without reliable data tends to be reactive, shaped by headlines and anecdote rather than evidence. Burns makes this point directly: independent, credible research is one of the only tools available to measure whether a regulatory regime is actually working - whether player protections are reducing harm or merely checking a box. Suppressing or diluting that evidence, intentionally or through bureaucratic caution, undermines the case for regulation itself.
Regulatory Response and Unresolved Questions
iGaming Ontario has pointed to its broader responsible gambling record in response to the criticism, citing investment of close to $5 million over the past year in player support programs, campus outreach, and the recent launch of BetGuard, a self-exclusion tool allowing players to remove themselves from the regulated market. These initiatives are real and measurable, but they do not resolve the core question raised by the *Star's* reporting: why a study tied to the province's own market launch was never released as promised.
The *Star's* editorial board has since called on Premier Doug Ford to address the matter publicly, citing reports of rising gambling-related emergency room visits, bankruptcies, and helpline usage in Ontario. Whether those trends are directly linked to the regulated market's growth remains a question the suppressed research might have helped answer. Until Ontario releases fuller, unredacted findings or commissions new independent research, the controversy is likely to keep shadowing a market that has positioned itself as a model of accountable regulation.