Ohio Casino Control Commission tells gaming licensees to stop providing services of any kind to platforms offering sports event contracts in Ohio, iGaming Times reports

The Ohio Casino Control Commission (OCCC) is extending its campaign against unlicensed sports event contracts to the businesses supporting them. According to iGaming Times, a letter dated 20 October directs regulated firms to end that support immediately and confirm compliance by 30 October, putting their Ohio licensing status at risk if they fail to comply.

A licensing threat across the supply chain

Signed by Interim Executive Director Andromeda Morrison, the letter covers fantasy contest operators; sports gaming proprietors, management services providers, mobile management services providers, suppliers and their key employees; certified independent integrity monitors and testing laboratories; and licence applicants. Its reach includes market-making, liquidity, integrity monitoring, data, platforms, technology, security and other services supporting sports contracts available to people in Ohio. No individual licensee or platform is named. The Event Horizon newsletter first reported the letter, which Sports Betting Dime published in full, according to iGaming Times.

Recipients must retain evidence of compliance. Failure to comply could trigger renewed suitability investigations into the licensee or applicant, as well as associated owners, officers, directors, key employees and others involved. Potential outcomes include denial, nonrenewal, suspension, revocation and other administrative measures. The commission identifies additional concerns where platforms admit 18 to 20-year-olds, do not participate in Ohio’s responsible gaming and voluntary exclusion programmes, or offer wagers outside the state’s approved catalogue. The letter invokes Chapters 3775 and 3774 of the Ohio Revised Code: Section 3775.02(F) permits licensing investigations to be reopened at any time, while Section 3775.041(B) addresses compliance with gambling licensing requirements in Ohio and elsewhere.

An exemption alongside ongoing litigation

The directive follows 10 cease-and-desist letters issued on 2 October, a 16 October compliance deadline and Polymarket’s federal lawsuit challenging its letter. It also cites the Sixth Circuit’s 25 September ruling against Kalshi and signals enforcement against recipients that missed the deadline. At the commission’s 21 October monthly meeting, Morrison said investigations were continuing and that Ohio would defend its sports gaming laws against Polymarket’s challenge, according to CDC Gaming, as reported by iGaming Times.

There is a defined exception for futures commission merchants and introducing brokers that prevent Ohio customers from accessing sports event contracts on Designated Contract Markets, directly or indirectly. That differs from guidance signed by then Executive Director Matthew Schuler on 25 August 2025, which warned sportsbooks considering their own exchanges or brokerages that excluding Ohio geographically might not resolve suitability concerns. Morrison linked the new directive to that earlier guidance, according to CDC Gaming; The Closing Line published the August 2025 text, iGaming Times reported.

Ohio is not alone in using licensing oversight this way. According to iGaming Times, Arizona’s Department of Gaming issued a similar warning on 15 September 2025, followed by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission on 13 November 2025. Nevada’s Gaming Control Board warned in November 2025 that relationships with sports-contract businesses operating outside another state’s rules could affect assessments of licensees. That notice also recorded Flutter’s surrender of FanDuel’s Nevada licences and DraftKings’ withdrawal of its applications. Ohio’s latest letter arrived on the day Utah sued Kalshi market maker Susquehanna.

Suppliers and sportsbook affiliates face different questions

Sportradar and Genius Sports both announced Ohio sports gaming supplier licences in December 2022 and subsequently expanded relationships with Polymarket US, one of the 10 cease-and-desist recipients. Genius Sports agreed in August to provide official settlement data and integrity services; Sportradar followed weeks later with data, live odds, streaming and integrity products. iGaming Times said it could find no public comment from either company by Thursday. The report’s reading of the directive is that it reaches services supplied to an entity offering sports contracts in Ohio, rather than only services delivered within the state—leaving suppliers facing questions about their broader client relationships.

DraftKings, FanDuel and Fanatics operate both Ohio sportsbooks and prediction products. At launch, those prediction products excluded sports contracts from states with legal online sports betting; DraftKings Predictions excluded Ohio entirely, according to Axios, as cited by iGaming Times. Those restrictions may keep them outside the letter’s direct trigger, but counterparty relationships remain relevant. Fanatics Markets routes customers through its introducing broker to Crypto.com’s derivatives exchange, which received an Ohio letter in March 2025. Whether that exchange currently serves Ohio customers remains unresolved in the reporting. Unlike their withdrawn or surrendered Nevada positions, DraftKings and FanDuel have active Ohio sportsbook operations.

What it means for prediction markets

• 30 October is the next compliance checkpoint. Licensees must confirm that they have stopped prohibited support and maintain records demonstrating compliance.
• Operational exposure extends beyond exchanges. Data, liquidity, market-making, technology and integrity providers are explicitly covered, potentially affecting the services underpinning sports-contract trading.
• Ohio access is a key distinction. The express exception for qualifying brokers depends on preventing both direct and indirect access by Ohio customers; it is not a blanket exemption for all suppliers.
• Litigation and licensing are separate fronts. Polymarket’s lawsuit challenges Ohio’s action, while the new directive places additional regulatory pressure on licensed counterparties. The reporting establishes neither completed supplier withdrawals nor final sanctions.