The commission’s Oct. 2 letter, addressed to PM US Tech (QC Tech LLC), demanded that Polymarket immediately stop offering or facilitating sports-event contracts in Ohio. It required written confirmation of compliance within 14 days, making Oct. 16 the response deadline—not a grace period to keep trading. The demand also covers soliciting or accepting orders from people in Ohio.
Ohio argues that customers risking money on sports outcomes are engaging in sports gaming that requires a state license. Its letter threatens administrative, civil, nuisance or criminal action for noncompliance.
Gov. Mike DeWine has promised lawsuits. “You have to actually go out and file these suits, and that’s what we are going to do,” he told reporters, according to Ohio’s Statehouse News Bureau.
A Separate Constitutional Attack
The complaint’s first count invokes the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, alleging that Ohio discriminates against interstate commerce. Polymarket US points to licensing provisions favoring an Ohio physical presence, the length of that presence and spending on infrastructure in the state.
It also challenges requirements for an Ohio-based wager-accepting server and restrictions limiting licensed betting to people physically in Ohio. The company argues that these rules would force its nationwide exchange to duplicate infrastructure and exclude out-of-state participants from transactions.
That claim attacks the licensing framework itself. The second count argues that the Commodity Exchange Act displaces Ohio’s authority because the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over event-contract trading on federally designated markets. Event contracts pay out according to the outcome of a specified event.
The federal argument faces an unfavorable precedent in Kalshi’s Ohio legal fight. On Sept. 25, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of Kalshi’s preliminary-injunction request. The panel held that Kalshi had not shown its sports contracts qualified as swaps under federal law and, alternatively, that the federal statute did not preempt Ohio’s or Tennessee’s gambling laws.
Polymarket US also cites the CFTC’s proposal to explicitly include event contracts, including sports contracts, in the definition of a swap. That document proposes a rule change rather than adopting a final inclusion rule.
For Ohio users, the injunction request is a bid to preserve access to the U.S. exchange’s sports contracts. The public docket entries through Oct. 19 list no order shielding Polymarket US from enforcement.
