Ohio's gaming board ruled sports event contracts are gambling and issued a $5M fine. Kalshi is fighting back in federal and state courts.
| Platform | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Kalshi | Available | Operating under CFTC jurisdiction while Sixth Circuit appeal is pending. Ohio ruling targets sports contracts; political/economic markets unaffected. |
| Polymarket | Confirm at platform | Confirm access at polymarket.com. Polymarket is not named in Ohio's current action. |
| PredictIt | Confirm at platform | Confirm access at predictit.org. PredictIt is not named in Ohio's current action. |
Access can change during active litigation. This page tracks the legal situation — confirm current access directly with your platform. This is not legal advice.
Ohio's Casino Control Commission (OCCC) classified Kalshi's sports event contracts as gambling under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 3775 — the same framework that governs licensed sportsbooks in the state. The Commission argued that because Kalshi allows users to bet on sporting event outcomes without a state sports-betting license, it is operating an unlicensed sportsbook.
In March 2025, the OCCC sent Kalshi a cease-and-desist order. When Kalshi continued operating, the Commission escalated: on April 14, 2026, it issued a $5 million notice of intent to fine, citing unlicensed sports gaming, failure to collect Ohio's 20% sports-betting tax, failure to verify that users are 21 or older, and failure to participate in Ohio's Time-Out-Ohio self-exclusion program.
Kalshi's position: its sports event contracts are federally regulated financial instruments — not gambling — under the Commodity Exchange Act. The CFTC, the federal agency that regulates Kalshi, has backed Kalshi's position in a Sixth Circuit amicus brief.
A federal district court agreed with Ohio in March 2026, finding the Commodity Exchange Act does not preempt Ohio gaming law as applied to sports contracts. That ruling is on appeal to the Sixth Circuit.
Kalshi appealed the March 2026 federal ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Oral arguments are scheduled for July 30, 2026. Ohio's case has been consolidated with a parallel Tennessee case, both presenting the same core legal question.
The central question for the Sixth Circuit: Does the Commodity Exchange Act's grant of "exclusive jurisdiction" to the CFTC over event contracts preempt state gambling laws under the Supremacy Clause?
Federal law preempts Ohio gaming statutes as applied to CFTC-regulated contracts.
Ohio cannot enforce its sports-betting framework against Kalshi.
The $5M fine process would face a major legal obstacle.
Access to sports event contracts in Ohio would be legally reinforced.
Federal law does not preempt Ohio's gambling statutes for sports contracts.
Kalshi would need to comply with Ohio licensing rules or exit sports markets in Ohio.
Ohio could enforce the $5M fine through its normal process.
Other Sixth Circuit states (MI, TN, KY, IN, OH) would face the same precedent.
A ruling after oral argument typically takes weeks to several months. While the case is pending, Kalshi continues to operate in Ohio.
On June 29, 2026, Kalshi opened a second legal front by suing the Ohio Casino Control Commission in Ohio state court. This lawsuit does not contest the underlying preemption question — it targets the procedure Ohio is using to impose the fine.
Kalshi's argument: the Ohio constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial before a state agency can impose a civil penalty this large. The OCCC's administrative process — which does not include a jury — allegedly violates that right. Kalshi is asking the state court to halt the fine proceedings and issue a ruling that the administrative penalty process cannot be used here.
The state court case and the Sixth Circuit federal appeal are proceeding in parallel. Either case could settle independently of the other.
Cease-and-desist issued
Ohio Casino Control Commission sent cease-and-desist orders to Kalshi, Crypto.com, and Robinhood, accusing them of offering unlicensed sports betting in Ohio.
Kalshi files federal lawsuit
Kalshi sued the Ohio Casino Control Commission and Attorney General Dave Yost in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, arguing that the Commodity Exchange Act preempts Ohio's sports-gambling law.
Federal injunction denied
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison denied Kalshi's motion for a preliminary injunction. The court ruled that sports event contracts are not "swaps" under the CEA and federal law does not preempt Ohio gaming law.
Kalshi appeals to Sixth Circuit
Kalshi immediately appealed the district court ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Ohio's case was consolidated with a parallel Tennessee case.
$5M notice of intent to fine
The Ohio Casino Control Commission issued a $5M notice of intent to fine Kalshi for operating without a state sports-betting license, failing to collect state gaming taxes, and not meeting age-verification requirements.
Kalshi files state court suit over fine
Kalshi filed a second lawsuit in Ohio state court arguing the OCCC cannot impose the $5M fine through an administrative process that denies the jury trial guaranteed by the Ohio constitution.
Sixth Circuit oral arguments
Oral arguments are scheduled before the Sixth Circuit on the federal preemption question. The CFTC filed an amicus brief supporting Kalshi's position. A ruling after argument could take weeks to months.
Sixth Circuit ruling — date TBD
The Sixth Circuit will issue a ruling on whether federal law preempts Ohio's sports-gambling statutes as applied to CFTC-regulated prediction market contracts.
Ohio is one of at least eight states where Kalshi faces enforcement actions or lawsuits. The Sixth Circuit's ruling will set binding precedent for Michigan, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, and other states within the circuit — making it one of the most consequential prediction market legal decisions of 2026.
The Third Circuit (which covers New Jersey and Pennsylvania) has already ruled that federal law does preempt state gambling laws as applied to prediction markets. If the Sixth Circuit rules the opposite, it creates a circuit split — the condition that typically triggers the Supreme Court to take a case. Follow the SCOTUS preemption tracker →
Key sources: Columbus Dispatch (April 14, 2026 OCCC fine notice); California AG press release (June 12, 2026) confirming March 9 ruling and July 30 oral argument date; SBC Americas (June 30, 2026) on the state court suit. This page is informational — check your platform directly for current access. This is not legal advice.
