Gaming attorney says Polymarket overstates its Ohio discrimination claim
Holland & Knight's Joshua Kirschner tells SBC Americas that Polymarket's constitutional arguments against Ohio's sports betting rules go further than the law supports.
Polymarket has asked a federal court to block Ohio officials from enforcing a cease-and-desist order against its prediction markets, arguing the state's licensing regime is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
The complaint, filed on 16 October, contends that Ohio's approach to sports event contracts breaches the Commerce Clause and is pre-empted by the Commodity Exchange Act, which gives the Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight of federally registered derivatives exchanges.
Polymarket's lawyers wrote that Ohio's licensing framework is built for in-state casinos and would force the platform to restrict its nationwide exchange to customers physically present in the state, cutting it off from the rest of the country.
The lawsuit names Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson and Ohio Casino Control Commission executive director Andromeda Morrison among the defendants, and seeks both preliminary and permanent injunctions. SBC Americas said it had contacted Wilson's office and the OCCC for comment.
Holland & Knight partner Joshua Kirschner told SBC Americas that, stripped of its constitutional framing, Polymarket's central claim is narrower than it appears: that a state sports betting regime should not apply to interstate commodities activity already regulated under the CEA.
Kirschner said that core argument should not be read as branding every state sports betting law illegal, but rather as asserting that Ohio's regime is inapplicable to Polymarket's interstate business and pre-empted by federal law.
He was more critical of the lawsuit's framing of Ohio's sports betting regime as merely protectionist and therefore unlawful. Kirschner said that claim would come as news to a great many states with similar regulatory structures, and argued the complaint effectively waves away the entire rationale for state sports betting oversight.
The dispute follows cease-and-desist letters the OCCC sent to Polymarket and nine other companies this month, which accused them of offering sports event contracts without a licence under Ohio's definition of sports gaming. The commission ordered the recipients to halt sports-related offerings by 16 October.
Polymarket filed its lawsuit the same day the deadline expired, arguing that even the threat of enforcement exposes it to civil penalties, criminal prosecution and disruption to operations well beyond Ohio's borders.