Polymarket US sues Ohio after CFTC rules and Kalshi appeal loss

Polymarket US filed a federal lawsuit against the Ohio attorney general and the state casino regulators on 16 October 2026, arguing that rules issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on 9 October change the legal landscape after the Court of Appeals decision against Kalshi on 25 September 2026. The case was assigned to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, where Judge Douglas Cole has the matter.

Target of the suit

The complaint names Attorney General Andy Wilson, the seven members of the Ohio Casino Control Commission and interim executive director Andromeda Morrison. According to the filing, the commission sent a letter on 2 October urging Polymarket US to “cease and desist immediately” offering contracts on sporting events without a state licence. The letter, included as evidence in the filing but not publicly available online, alleges the company “is clearly engaged in taking or facilitating bets in violation of Ohio civil and criminal law.”

Ten companies received the same demand. A commission spokesman told SportsBettingDime that one company confirmed compliance and two have filed lawsuits; Polymarket is one of the two plaintiffs.

Legal bases asserted

The complaint advances two legal theories. First, that Ohio’s licensing rules favour operators with a physical presence in the state and would restrict even licensed operators to serve only Ohio customers, which the suit says imposes discriminatory measures that fragment interstate commerce. Second, that the Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC exclusive authority over event contracts traded on exchanges designated by the federal government.

Polymarket US says the Sixth Circuit’s 25 September decision against Kalshi was decided under a “different legal landscape” and cites two CFTC actions of 9 October: a final interim rule excluding casino‑style gaming from the definition of a swap and a proposed rule incorporating event contracts.

Polymarket asks the court to declare Ohio gaming laws unconstitutional and preempted as applied to the company, and seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions. As of 21 October 2026 it had not filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and Ohio had not yet responded to the complaint.

The filing also notes that the Third Circuit ruled for Kalshi against New Jersey and that New Jersey has asked the Supreme Court to review that decision, leaving the circuits divided over federal preemption.