Polymarket US is asking a federal court to stop Ohio from enforcing its gambling laws against the company’s sports event contracts. Tom Nightingale reports that its October 16 complaint calls Ohio’s licensing requirements discriminatory and unconstitutional. The suit seeks to keep a nationwide betting exchange outside the state’s sports-gaming licensing system.
Ohio’s casino regulator sent the company a cease-and-desist letter on October 2, with an October 16 deadline to confirm compliance. The commission considers sports event contracts, bets on the outcome of sporting events, to be sports gaming requiring a state license. Polymarket filed its complaint on that deadline, seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions against state officials.
The company makes two arguments. It says the Commodity Exchange Act gives the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the federal derivatives regulator, exclusive authority over its exchange. It also challenges Ohio’s requirements for an in-state physical presence and restrictions on serving customers outside Ohio. Calling those requirements unconstitutional is Polymarket’s position in litigation, not a court finding.
Nightingale quotes gaming attorney Joshua Kirschner, who questions the complaint’s portrayal of the state regime as merely protectionist. State licensing does more than reserve business for local operators. The dispute determines whether Ohio can apply its sports-gambling rules to these wagers, or whether oversight belongs exclusively to a federal financial regulator. Ohio residents placing the bets remain exposed to losses whichever legal category applies.
Ohio also has a recent appellate ruling behind its enforcement campaign. As Nightingale reports, the Sixth Circuit ruled against Kalshi in September, finding its sports contracts were not swaps under federal commodities law. The court also rejected federal preemption as an alternative ground. Governor Mike DeWine says the state will pursue lawsuits against companies that ignore its orders. This report documents a new challenge to that enforcement effort; it does not establish that an injunction has been granted or measure the consumer harm from these contracts.