Share 
Ohio Sen. Bill DeMora is renewing his push to regulate sports prediction markets and prohibit election-related trading, arguing that a federal appeals court ruling strengthens the state’s authority over the industry.
The Democratic lawmaker wants companies offering sports event contracts to obtain state gambling licenses and pay taxes. He also wants to explicitly prohibit election betting through prediction markets.
Neither proposal has gained significant legislative traction. However, the Sept. 25 decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has given DeMora fresh grounds to pursue the measures when Ohio’s next legislative session begins in 2027.
Two bills target sports contracts and election trading
DeMora’s Senate Bill 430 would clarify that trading prediction market contracts on sporting outcomes constitutes sports gaming under Ohio law. Operators would consequently need licenses from the Ohio Casino Control Commission (OCCC) to offer those contracts legally in the state.
Prediction market companies generally characterize their products as federally regulated financial contracts rather than conventional wagers. Customers buy and sell contracts based on the likelihood of particular outcomes, including sporting events.
The distinction between financial trading and sports wagering is central to Ohio’s dispute with the industry. DeMora wants state gambling requirements to apply to sports-related contracts regardless of how transactions are structured.
Introduced April 27, SB 430 was referred to the Senate Select Committee on Gaming on May 13. It has not advanced beyond committee consideration, according to the Ohio Legislature’s bill tracker.
DeMora introduced a second measure, Senate Bill 479, on Oct. 13. The proposal would classify election betting as prohibited gambling and specifically address prediction market contracts based on political election outcomes.
Licensed sportsbooks in Ohio cannot accept bets on political elections. SB 479 would extend that prohibition to similar transactions conducted through prediction markets.
Three Democratic senators — Nickie Antonio, Willis Blackshear Jr. and Casey Weinstein — co-sponsored the election betting proposal. DeMora remains the sole sponsor of SB 430.
Neither bill has advanced, and measures that fail to pass before the current two-year General Assembly ends will need to be reintroduced in 2027.
DeMora told SBC Americas that he intends to bring his proposals back next year if they fail to pass during the current session.
Sixth Circuit ruling strengthens states’ position
The senator’s optimism stems from a Sept. 25 decision involving prediction market operator Kalshi and regulators in Ohio and Tennessee.
Kalshi argued that its sports event contracts fell under federal commodities law and that the CFTC had exclusive authority to regulate them. The company also sought protection from state gambling enforcement.
A unanimous three-judge panel rejected Kalshi’s request for preliminary relief. The judges found that the company had not established that its sports contracts qualified as swaps under the Commodity Exchange Act. They also concluded that federal commodities law did not prevent Ohio and Tennessee from applying their gambling regulations.
The ruling upheld an Ohio federal court’s refusal to grant Kalshi a preliminary injunction and overturned a Tennessee injunction blocking enforcement against the company. It did not resolve the underlying litigation, but it allowed both states to continue pursuing enforcement.
DeMora believes lawmakers should build on the decision rather than leave Ohio’s response entirely to the courts.
“It’s an issue of states having the ability to regulate industries in their own state,” he told SBC Americas.
The ruling also adds to an existing split among federal appeals courts. The Third Circuit previously sided with Kalshi in its dispute with New Jersey, while the Ninth Circuit ruled against the company in its Nevada case.
New Jersey has asked the US Supreme Court to review the Third Circuit decision, potentially giving the justices an opportunity to resolve the disagreement over federal and state regulatory authority.
Kalshi seeks rehearing as political obstacles remain
The Sixth Circuit’s September decision is not necessarily the final word. Kalshi filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc on Oct. 9, asking the court to reconsider its ruling.
On Oct. 28, the court directed Ohio and Tennessee to respond by Nov. 12. The request does not mean the court has agreed to rehear the case, and the September decision remains in place unless further action is taken. DeFi Rate’s litigation tracker documents the petition and subsequent court order.
The ongoing litigation gives Ohio lawmakers another reason to clarify the state’s position. However, DeMora faces political challenges as he prepares to renew his legislative campaign.
The senator claims Ohio lost hundreds of millions of dollars during its previous two-year budget cycle because prediction markets were not subject to the same tax and licensing requirements as traditional sportsbooks. That figure is his estimate, not an independently established calculation of lost tax revenue.
“We need to regulate them and start taxing them like we’re doing with sports betting,” DeMora said.
He has also argued that the issue should not divide lawmakers along party lines. Republican Gov. Mike DeWine has likewise described sports prediction contracts as gambling.
However, DeMora says some colleagues remain unfamiliar with prediction markets and have shown limited interest in the details.
The next legislative cycle will bring further changes. DeWine’s term ends in January, meaning Ohio will have a new governor in 2027. The Senate’s gaming leadership will also change following Sen. Nathan Manning‘s appointment to the Ninth District Court of Appeals. DeMora previously identified Manning as one of the few lawmakers with substantial knowledge of gambling policy.
Those transitions could complicate efforts to secure support for the bills. Nevertheless, DeMora intends to continue pushing for state oversight when the new General Assembly convenes in January.
The Sixth Circuit ruling has strengthened his argument, but whether that translates into legislative support remains uncertain.
