Ohio Bill Seeks to Tax Prediction Markets Similar to Sports Betting

• An introduced Ohio bill seeks to tax, regulate prediction markets similar to sports betting
• Sen. William P. DeMora’s (D-25) bill seeks to bring sports event contracts under the umbrella of the state’s sports betting regulations
• If approved, prediction market platforms would be required to hold sports betting licenses and pay the required sports betting tax

An Ohio Senator’s bill seeks to bring prediction market companies under the same fold as sports betting in the Buckeye State.

Sen. William P. DeMora (D-25) this week introduced SB 430, legislation that will require prediction market companies to hold sports betting licenses and pay the necessary 20% sports betting tax to offer sports event contracts in the state.

Ohio is currently embroiled in several lawsuits with prediction market companies in an ongoing battle to regulate the controversial contracts.

State Regulations for Prediction Markets

DeMora’s bill amends the state’s sports betting regulations to include prediction markets. The legislation amends the definition of sports betting to include the following:

“‘Sports gaming’ includes the use of a prediction market to acquire, sell, or trade an event contract that is contingent on the outcome of a sporting event. As used in this division: (a) ‘Event contract’ means an instrument that provides for payment based on the occurrence of an event or contingency. (b) ‘Prediction market’ means a system that allows a person to acquire, sell, or trade event contracts.”

If approved, prediction market companies will have to acquire a sports betting license and be subjected to the state’s 20% sports betting tax revenue rate. However, if approved the bill would likely be battled out in court.

Ohio has been in an ongoing tussle with the prediction market companies for more than a year, involved in a number of lawsuits vying for regulatory power over the new sports event contract markets.

Ohio, Prediction Markets Still Wrangling For Power

The Ohio Casino Control Commission and Kalshi have clashed back and forth in state and federal courts over the past year, trying to determine who has regulatory power over the company’s prediction markets.

Earlier this month, the Ohio Casino Control Commission issued a notice of intent to Kalshi to impose a civil penalty or monetary fine of $5 million against the prediction market company for offering unlicensed sports betting in the Buckeye State.

“Based upon the foregoing, and pursuant to Ohio law, Kalshi is subject to administrative action for operating or conducting sports gaming without a license, failing to cooperate with the Commission (which includes failing to abide by the Commission’s cease and desist order and failing to provide the Commission with the information it requested), and engaging in conduct that undermines the integrity, or public confidence in, sports gaming in Ohio,” the Ohio Casino Control Commission wrote in its notice of intent to Kalshi.

The commission levied a cease-and-desist notice to Kalshi in March 2025, ordering the company (along with Crypto.com and Robinhood) to cease its sports event contract offerings. Kalshi responded by filing a federal lawsuit against both the Ohio Casino Control Commission and Ohio Attorney General Yost in October 2025.

Filed in the the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, the lawsuit claimed the Ohio Casino Control Commission and Attorney General threatened criminal penalties against Kalshi unless it shuts down event contracts in the state by late October. Additionally, Kalshi reported the Ohio Casino Control Commission sent a letter to licensed sports betting operators on Aug. 25, threatening to revoke Ohio gaming licenses for any operator who partners with Kalshi, even if the partnership occurs in other states.

These actions, Kalshi counsel wrote in the lawsuit, “threaten immediate and irreparable harm, not just to Kalshi but to its customers and commercial counterparties,” leading the company to seek a preliminary and permanent injunction from the two agencies to continue offering its prediction markets in the state.

However, in March 2026 a U.S. District Court Judge ruled against Kalshi’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the Ohio Casino Control Commission and Yost.

U.S. District Court Judge Sarah D. Morrison denied the prediction market company’s motion for a preliminary injunction. In her decision, Morrison backed the state’s interpretation of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), claiming it does not govern sports-event contracts.

If the preliminary injunction had been awarded to Kalshi, the company would have legally been able to offer its sports event contracts in the state through the course of its lawsuit.