Polymarket US has filed a federal lawsuit against Ohio officials to “prevent imminent and irreparable harm” linked to the state’s enforcement actions against prediction market apps. The lawsuit, filed early Tuesday morning Eastern Time and shared by Miami Law School professor Daniel Wallach, takes a new legal approach in an attempt to halt Ohio’s crackdown on prediction market sports event contracts.
The target of the lawsuit is Ohio’s in-state sports betting restrictions. Ohio sports betting laws require licensed operators to fund and pay all expenses for servers within Ohio’s geographical borders. Operators (sportsbooks) must also maintain a local corporate presence in Ohio if they wish to retain licenses that are issued by the Ohio Casino Control Commission (OCCC).
The October 20th lawsuit filed by Polymarket US creates a constitutional challenge against Ohio officials that’s linked to legal doctrine within the Commerce Clause. By forcing sports betting operators to conduct their business rigidly within Ohio’s borders, Polymarket US is arguing that the state is engaging in “unlawful protectionism.”
RELATED: Ohio’s Cease-and-Desist Letters to Prediction Markets (October 2nd, 2026)
According to the domestic, CFTC-regulated prediction market, Ohio’s strict in-state regulatory requirements are in conflict with the implied Dormant Commerce Clause because they unconstitutionally discriminate against out-of-state businesses and restrict interstate commerce.
Section 1084(a) of the Wire Act explicitly prohibits the use of “…a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers…”
By mandating that all data and corporate infrastructure be contained within state borders, it can be argued that Ohio gaming officials (and officials from other states where sports betting is legal) have taken active measures to ensure compliance with the federal Wire Act.
Whether Ohio’s in-state regulatory restrictions on sports betting truly represent “unlawful protectionism” under the US Constitution is now a legal issue for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division federal court to decide. Yet it remains clear that long-standing interpretations of the Wire Act are a determining factor in states’ decisions to localize and ring-fence sports betting activities.
Gaming attorney Daniel Wallach’s social media reference to a “wild heel turn” by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (which currently represents Polymarket US) stems from the law firm’s past efforts to overturn PASPA. In 2012, the firm was retained by then-New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and worked with the state until 2018 to promote legal, state-sponsored sports betting.
The suggested irony comes from the fact that the same law firm now represents Polymarket US (and is providing legal arguments against state-based enforcement of sports betting laws). Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s legal involvement in prediction market cases was pointed out by Wallach in February of this year. In January 2020, two partners within the firm wrote an op-ed for Law.com that outlined “The Constitutionality of Mobile Sports Wagering in New York State.”
The legal arguments presented by Polymarket US in its federal lawsuit against Ohio are independent from the business dealings of any corporate law firm. However, compliance with the Wire Act could be used by Ohio in its counter-argument against the prediction market’s legal claims.
Loading …
