Ohio orders 10 prediction markets to stop sports betting before 16 Oct

Ohio has ordered ten prediction market platforms to stop offering contracts on sporting events without a state sports-betting license before 16 October. The regulator’s instruction also reaches financial brokers who facilitate access to those markets. The formal order comes from the Ohio Casino Control Commission and requires written confirmation of compliance.

How this affects prediction markets in Ohio

The Ohio Casino Control Commission (OCCC) views the offer of contracts on sporting-event outcomes on unlicensed platforms as sports-betting activity and therefore subject to state law. Ohio requires sports-betting operators to hold a state license and to enforce a minimum gambling age of 21 years. The OCCC warned that the lack of a license and the consumer protections required by state rules justify regulatory intervention.

The list of affected companies includes: Underdog, Gemini Titan, Coinbase, ProphetX, Novig, Robinhood Derivatives, Polymarket US, Plus500US Financial Services, Moomoo Financial and Webull Financial. Kalshi is not among the ten companies named in this particular order, although it faces separate litigation in Ohio.

Deadlines and requirements for prediction markets

The OCCC set 16 October as the deadline for firms and brokers to provide written confirmation that they have ceased marketing contracts on sporting events without a license. Failure to comply may lead to civil, administrative or criminal actions by the regulator.

The commission’s requirements for licensed operators in Ohio include age verification (minimum 21 years) and the consumer protections established by state law. The OCCC made clear that operating through a federally regulated exchange does not exempt firms from obtaining an Ohio sports-betting license.

Judicial context: federal rulings and Ohio’s position

A federal court decision in Illinois favoured Kalshi and Coinbase in a dispute over whether contracts on sporting-event outcomes qualify as "swaps" under federal commodities law. Nevertheless, Ohio’s regulatory approach has been different.

On 25 September, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the Commodity Exchange Act does not preempt gambling laws in Ohio or Tennessee and also concluded that Kalshi had not shown its sports contracts were swaps. After that ruling, the OCCC expanded its enforcement action to target multiple platforms.

Regulator statement

“Because these wagers lack the protections Ohio law requires, particularly for young and vulnerable people, the Commission must take action to fulfill its statutory responsibilities, protect consumers, and maintain fairness and integrity in sports gaming across Ohio.” — Andromeda Morrison, Interim Executive Director, Ohio Casino Control Commission

Interim director Andromeda Morrison justified the measure on the grounds that required state protections are missing, particularly with respect to young and vulnerable people.

Reactions and regulatory background

Robinhood had already received a cease-and-desist order in March 2025, according to the file cited by the OCCC. Kalshi continues to pursue additional litigation in Ohio that is not part of this collective order.

The central distinction between federally regulated financial markets and state-licensed sportsbooks is the application of gambling rules: books licensed in Ohio must comply with state player protections and age controls, while unlicensed platforms do not apply those requirements.

What operators, brokers and providers should prepare

Named firms that want to continue offering products related to sporting events in the Ohio market must apply for and obtain a state sports-betting license, or else cease the offering before the deadline. The OCCC expects written confirmation of cessation from each affected company.

For brokers and trading platforms that facilitate access to these markets, the decision means reviewing products and distribution channels in jurisdictions with specific limits on sports betting. Risks include administrative sanctions and potential civil or criminal proceedings if the regulator’s order is not respected.

Where this fits in the regulatory landscape

Ohio’s action underscores that federal court wins do not guarantee immunity from state regulators when local gambling laws deem the activity to be wagering. The case illustrates that the same product can receive different legal treatment depending on jurisdiction and on the interpretation of federal versus state rules.

The OCCC has set a firm deadline. Affected companies will have to decide whether to adapt their offering to state rules or stop it in Ohio before 16 October.