Ohio Wants to Treat Prediction Markets Like Sports Betting — SB 430 Explained for Operators

Ohio has been one of the most aggressive states in the country in fighting prediction markets through the courts. The Ohio Casino Control Commission proposed a $5 million fine against Kalshi in April. A federal judge in the state denied Kalshi’s injunction request in March, ruling that treating sports event contracts as federally protected swaps would produce “absurd results.” The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to grant Kalshi a preliminary injunction in late April, while simultaneously accelerating the appeal timeline. By most measures, Ohio regulators have been winning.

And yet Senator Bill DeMora filed Senate Bill 430 on April 28 — a bill that would stop fighting about whether prediction markets can be shut down and start building a licensing framework for them instead. Understanding why illuminates exactly where the state-level prediction market fight is headed and what it means for sportsbook operators.

What the Bill Does

SB 430 would formally classify trading on sports event contracts as sports wagering under Ohio law. Prediction market platforms offering those contracts to Ohio residents would be required to obtain a license from the Ohio Casino Control Commission and pay the state’s 20 percent tax on gross gaming revenues from sports betting activity. Those requirements mirror what Ohio’s licensed sportsbooks — DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, Caesars, and others — operate under today.

The bill’s sponsor, DeMora, is the lead Democrat on the Ohio Senate Select Committee on Gaming and one of the more experienced state legislators on gambling matters. He has been explicit in his assessment of Kalshi: he views the company as “a sham” on the grounds that its sports markets are functionally identical to sports betting. SB 430 is not a capitulation to that view — it is a practical response to it. If Kalshi’s markets are sports betting, they should be licensed and taxed as sports betting. If the Supreme Court eventually rules that federal law preempts state enforcement, Ohio should have a licensing framework ready to capture that activity rather than simply losing it.

Why Operators Are Watching

For licensed sportsbook operators in Ohio and nationally, SB 430 represents the regulatory outcome they have been publicly requesting without always explicitly calling for. The casino and sports betting industry’s position has been consistent: prediction markets that offer sports event contracts should face the same licensing, consumer protection, and tax obligations that licensed sportsbooks face. A state that passes a framework like SB 430 accomplishes exactly that, creating a level playing field rather than an environment where licensed operators fund state education while unlicensed platforms extract revenue tax-free.

Ohio’s licensed sportsbooks generated over $1 billion in gross gaming revenue in 2025, producing more than $210 million in state tax receipts — the majority directed to elementary and secondary education. Prediction market platforms have been serving Ohio residents and generating revenue in the state without contributing to that fund. SB 430 would close that gap.

The bill also has implications for the specific rules that apply to licensed operators. Ohio’s OCCC has prohibited prop bets on certain college athletes — a restriction that applies to licensed sportsbooks but not to prediction market platforms. Under SB 430, prediction markets operating in Ohio would need to comply with those same restrictions, eliminating the current asymmetry where licensed operators are bound by consumer protection rules that unlicensed competitors can ignore.

The Strategic Picture

Ohio joins Illinois, New Jersey, and Iowa as states that have introduced or advanced licensing-based frameworks as an alternative or complement to outright bans. Illinois introduced SB 4168 in March, which would require prediction market platforms to obtain state licenses and pay Illinois gaming taxes. Iowa’s Senate passed SF 2470 by 45-1, creating a comprehensive permit and tax structure. New Jersey has considered requiring sports event contracts to operate under the state’s existing sports betting framework.

The significance of SB 430 is the context in which it is being introduced. Ohio has already won in federal court — twice. The Sixth Circuit appeal is accelerating, with Kalshi’s brief due May 5 and Ohio’s response by June 4. Introducing a licensing bill now, while simultaneously holding strong litigation positions, signals that Ohio is playing for multiple outcomes simultaneously. If courts shut prediction markets down, the bill becomes moot. If courts ultimately side with federal preemption, Ohio has a regulatory framework ready to license and tax these platforms rather than losing the revenue entirely. For operators watching where state-level policy is headed, that dual-track approach is likely to become more common.