Share 
Polymarket filed a federal lawsuit on Oct. 16 seeking to block Ohio officials from enforcing the state’s sports betting laws against its prediction-market operations. The filing came on the deadline Ohio regulators set for Polymarket and nine other companies to stop offering sports event contracts, according to SBC Americas.
The company is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions. Its complaint argues that Ohio’s threatened enforcement violates the Constitution’s Commerce Clause and is preempted by the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA).
Ohio says sports event contracts require a license
The Ohio Casino Control Commission sent cease-and-desist letters to the 10 companies earlier this month. The commission said sports event contracts meet Ohio’s definition of sports gaming and require a state license.
Polymarket’s complaint cites a real and imminent risk of enforcement. It says the company could face civil penalties, criminal prosecution, forced cessation of operations in Ohio and collateral consequences for its nationwide operations.
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine said the state would file lawsuits against companies that did not comply with the orders.
“These are not self-executing. You have to actually go out and file these suits, and that’s what we are going to do,” DeWine said, according to SBC Americas.
Polymarket challenges Ohio’s licensing requirements
Polymarket argues that Ohio’s wagering licenses are available only to approved applicants with an in-state physical presence. The company characterizes those requirements as discriminatory restrictions on interstate commerce, rather than lawful conditions on sports betting.
“Ohio’s threatened enforcement through its protectionist licensing regime violates the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause and is preempted by the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA),” the complaint states.
Those are Polymarket’s legal claims, not findings by the court. Its request asks the court to prevent Ohio from applying its sports betting enforcement regime to the company.
Separate Kalshi ruling addresses federal preemption
SBC Americas also reported that a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sided with Ohio and Tennessee in separate litigation involving Kalshi.
The panel found that Kalshi’s sports event contracts were not swaps under the CEA and that federal commodities law did not preempt either state’s sports betting laws.
That ruling concerns Kalshi, not a decision on Polymarket’s complaint. How it will affect Polymarket’s lawsuit, and whether the court will grant the requested injunctions, remain unresolved in the supplied reporting.
More from playwv.com – 6th Circuit says Tennessee and Ohio can enforce gambling laws against Kalshi – 39 states and DC urge Supreme Court to hear Kalshi gambling preemption case – Kalshi tribal prediction app launch deepens dispute over gaming rights
—
Source: As reported by SBC Americas.
This article was created with the assistance of AI and is monitored by our editorial team.
