Polymarket US sues Ohio regulators, citing October CFTC rulemaking

Polymarket US filed a federal lawsuit against Ohio's attorney general and casino regulators on Oct. 16, the state's filing deadline. The complaint, lodged in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio before Judge Douglas Cole, challenges an Oct. 2 cease-and-desist letter from the Ohio Casino Control Commission and names Attorney General Andy Wilson, the commission's seven members and interim executive director Andromeda Morrison.

Basis of Ohio's demand

Polymarket's complaint attaches the commission's Oct. 2 letter, which told Polymarket US to “immediately cease and desist from offering” sports event contracts without a state license. The letter, filed as an exhibit and not freely available online, alleges the company "is clearly engaged in bookmaking or facilitating bookmaking in violation of Ohio civil and criminal law." The filing says ten companies received similar notices; a commission spokesperson told SportsBettingDime that one has confirmed compliance and two are suing, with Polymarket identified as one of the two.

Two legal theories in the complaint

First, Polymarket argues Ohio's licensing rules prefer businesses with an in-state physical footprint and would restrict even licensed operators to Ohio customers, calling those measures discriminatory and saying they “violate the Constitution's promise of open, interstate commerce.”

Second, the complaint invokes the Commodity Exchange Act and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's recent rulemaking, arguing exclusive federal authority over event contracts on designated exchanges preempts state gambling laws.

"[The Sixth Circuit's Sept. 25 ruling] was decided against a different legal landscape," the complaint says, citing two CFTC actions from Oct. 9: an interim final rule carving casino-style gambling out of the swap definition and a proposed rule that expressly writes event contracts into the CFTC framework.

Polymarket US asks the court to declare Ohio's gambling statutes unconstitutional and preempted as applied to it, and seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions. As of Oct. 21 the company had not yet moved for a preliminary injunction, and Ohio had not yet filed a response.

The complaint also notes the Third Circuit sided with Kalshi against New Jersey on preemption; New Jersey has asked the Supreme Court to review that Third Circuit ruling. The filing points to a split among appeals courts following the Sixth Circuit decision on Sept. 25.