Ohio regulators have ordered 10 prediction market operators to stop offering sports event contracts in the state, arguing that the products amount to unlicensed sports betting.
The Ohio Casino Control Commission issued cease-and-desist notices to companies including Polymarket, Robinhood, Gemini Titan, Coinbase, ProphetX, Novig, Plus500, Moomoo and Webull. These operators have until 16 October to comply.
Commission Says Sports Contracts Fall Under Ohio Gambling Law
The commission said sports event contracts are equivalent to sports wagers under Ohio law and therefore require state licensing. It warned that operators offering the products without a licence could be engaging in illegal gambling activity.
OCCC interim executive director Andromeda Morrison said: “Because these wagers lack the protections Ohio law requires, particularly for young and vulnerable people, the Commission must take action to fulfil its statutory responsibilities, protect consumers, and maintain fairness and integrity in sports gaming across Ohio.”
“The Sixth Circuit’s ruling makes clear that sports event contracts are subject to Ohio’s gambling laws. The Commission expects these entities to cease their illegal gambling activity in Ohio immediately,” the notices add.
Failure to comply could lead to administrative, civil or criminal enforcement action.
Sixth Circuit Ruling Strengthens State Enforcement Powers
Ohio relied on a recent Sixth Circuit decision involving Kalshi and disputes in Ohio and Tennessee. The court ruled that Kalshi had not shown its sports event contracts qualified as swaps under federal commodities law.
It also held that the Commodity Exchange Act did not pre-empt state gambling laws. Judge Julia Smith Gibbons wrote that the Act “neither expressly nor impliedly preempts Ohio’s or Tennessee’s gambling laws”.
Kalshi was not included in the latest notices, likely because Ohio’s litigation with the company remains the central legal dispute over state and federal authority.
Ohio’s action increases pressure on prediction market operators describing sports contracts as financial products rather than betting. The Sixth Circuit ruling gives states a stronger basis for demanding licences, taxes and consumer safeguards. Kalshi’s omission shows that the wider legal conflict remains, but more states are willing to enforce against sports event contracts.
Share
6 views
