Ohio Pushes State Control Over Prediction Markets in Kalshi Fight

On April 24 2026, a federal appeals court refused to grant Kalshi’s injunction seeking to block Ohio’s new sports betting rules from implementation. The State has the will to regulate prediction markets in the same way as sports betting, and this will be a groundbreaking step that will undoubtedly impact the whole industry.

Kalshi maintains that its event contracts fall under federal oversight through the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and should not be treated as sports betting under Ohio law. Ohio is taking the opposite position and wants prediction markets regulated like other gambling products, with state licences, taxes, and consumer protection rules.

The outcome matters for operators across the market. If Ohio’s position gains support in other states, prediction market companies could face the same compliance costs and licensing process as sportsbooks. That would make expansion slower and more expensive, especially for smaller operators trying to enter multiple states at the same time.

Ohio’s push goes beyond the current court fight. State lawmakers have advanced SB 430, a bill that would place prediction markets under the authority of the Ohio Casino Control Commission. Under the proposal, companies offering these products in the state would need a local licence and would be subject to gambling rules similar to sportsbook operators.

The bill would apply a 20% tax on gaming revenue and introduce consumer protection requirements such as age checks and advertising restrictions. For the wider market, the proposal is important because it gives other states a possible model to follow if they decide to challenge federal oversight and bring prediction markets into their own gambling frameworks.

💡 TGJ Take

Ohio’s approach could change how prediction markets operate across the US. If other states follow, companies like Kalshi may need separate licences, pay state gaming taxes, and follow the same compliance rules as sportsbook operators in each market. That would increase operating costs and make nationwide expansion harder, especially for smaller companies. The case is another sign that states want more control over prediction markets instead of leaving oversight entirely to federal regulators.