Ohio Sends Cease-and-Desists to Prediction Markets

Ohio turns up the heat on prediction markets

Ohio has become the latest state to take formal action against prediction market operators, issuing cease-and-desist orders to 10 companies. The state says each operator is offering sports event contracts in Ohio without proper authorization, which in its view violates state gambling law.

At the heart of the dispute is a simple question with major consequences: if people are putting money at risk on the outcome of a game, is that a financial product or a sports bet? Ohio is making its position very clear. In the state’s eyes, these contracts are not a clever new form of trading — they are online sports gaming.

For poker players and gambling industry watchers, this matters because it shows how quickly regulators can redraw the boundaries around risk-based products. Whether you’re following poker rooms, poker clubs, or broader gaming policy, the message is the same: legality is never just about demand, it is about licensing and jurisdiction.

What Ohio told the operators

The letters sent by Ohio say the recipients must stop offering sports event contracts in the state and provide a written response confirming compliance. Regulators also note that offering sports bets without the appropriate license can be a felony under state law.

That raises the stakes dramatically. This is no longer just a policy disagreement or a compliance warning. It is a clear legal threat, and it signals that Ohio is prepared to use the full force of state gambling law against prediction market operators.

Ohio is not acting alone. Michigan and Nevada have already succeeded in pushing prediction markets out, at least when it comes to sports contracts, which remain the core point of friction between the industry and state regulators.

Kalshi is among the names caught in the crossfire, and the company was already part of the initial litigation that ended in Ohio’s favor. That history matters because it shows this is not a one-off enforcement move — it is part of a longer legal campaign.

Why states keep fighting sports event contracts

The central objection from states is that prediction markets create the same social and regulatory concerns as sportsbooks, but without the same tax revenue. From the state’s perspective, that is the worst of both worlds: gambling-like activity with none of the public benefit that comes from a licensed betting market.

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has been one of the most aggressive critics of legalized betting in general. He has even said he regrets signing the legalization measure into law. That tells you how seriously Ohio treats this issue: it is not merely trying to police a new product, it is trying to contain a market it already views as problematic.

In 2025, Ohio successfully pushed for a policy change that capped micro-bets at many sportsbooks at $200. The move came in response to an alleged fixing scandal involving two Cleveland Guardians pitchers. The case is still moving through the courts, but it showed how willing the state is to intervene when it believes product design can create integrity risks.

The takeaway is straightforward: if regulators believe a betting product can amplify harm, they will not wait for the market to self-correct.

CFTC, swaps, and the casino-style loophole

Prediction market operators argue that their contracts are swaps, which would place them under financial regulation rather than traditional gambling law. That legal theory is the foundation of the industry’s defense, and it is why the current fight is so important.

But the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees prediction markets, appears to be trying to close a potential loophole. It has proposed a rule that would exclude casino-style gambling products from the definition of a swap.

That matters because critics worry prediction markets could one day offer contracts that look almost identical to casino games. Imagine trading contracts based on the next spin of a roulette wheel, or on whether a blackjack hand ends in a dealer win or player win. At that point, the distinction between a financial market and a casino would be nearly impossible to defend.

For the industry, the legal uncertainty is a major business risk. For players, it means products can change fast, disappear suddenly, or become unavailable in certain states overnight.

Expert analysis: what this means for players and the market

The big lesson here is that prediction markets are still fighting for legitimacy on two fronts at once: legal classification and public perception. States are arguing that sports event contracts are simply bets. Operators are arguing that they are financial instruments. Until a higher court settles that question, the market will remain unstable.

For players, the practical implication is that access is fragile. A product that looks available today may be restricted tomorrow if a state regulator decides it falls under gambling law. That is especially important for users who treat prediction markets as a way to express opinions on sports outcomes rather than as a traditional sportsbook.

For the industry, diversification is becoming essential. Sports may drive the biggest volume, but political and news-driven contracts could become the long-term path to survival if states continue winning these battles. That is why partnerships, media visibility, and non-sports products matter so much.

• sports event contracts remain the most vulnerable product category;
• states are likely to keep challenging anything that resembles betting;
• non-sports markets may be more important than ever;
• regulatory clarity, likely from the Supreme Court, is still the missing piece.

If you follow the broader ecosystem — from poker school to promotions & bonuses — the same principle applies: sustainable gaming businesses are built on trust, clarity, and a legal framework that customers can understand.

Kalshi’s media push and the election angle

While sports betting dominates prediction market volume, politics has been the industry’s best branding tool. Kalshi’s breakout moment came during the 2024 election cycle, when trading surged and total volume topped $670 million.

Now Kalshi has signed a sponsorship deal with CBS, which will feature Kalshi market data prominently in coverage of the upcoming midterm elections. CBS said it will give viewers a glimpse into how prediction market traders are pricing race outcomes, while making clear that voters still decide the final result.

That kind of mainstream exposure matters. Kalshi already has media partnerships with CNN, FOX, and CNBC, and every new relationship gives prediction markets more legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

The midterms probably will not match the 2024 election frenzy, but traders have already put close to $100 million into markets on control of both congressional chambers. Even if the audience is smaller, the strategic value is huge: political markets help the industry show it can be more than sports.

Final takeaway: the fight is far from over

Ohio’s cease-and-desist campaign is another reminder that prediction markets are still in a fragile legal phase. States are drawing a hard line around sports event contracts, and until there is national clarity, operators will keep facing uneven enforcement.

For players, that means staying aware of local rules is just as important as understanding pricing or liquidity. For operators, it means the next growth phase may depend less on sports and more on political, economic, and media-friendly markets.

The battle over prediction markets is not just about one state or one company. It is about whether the U.S. will treat event contracts as finance, gambling, or something in between. And that answer will shape the industry for years to come.

FAQ