Credit card sports betting deposits to be banned in Ohio

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

Ohio’s move follows a national shift on gambling debt

Ohio’s pending credit card ban for sports betting deposits is part of a broader reassessment of how quickly online wagering has expanded and how easily customers can fund accounts with borrowed money. The Ohio Casino Control Commission’s proposed rule would put the state among a growing group of jurisdictions that view credit cards as a distinct consumer-risk issue, separate from the legality of sports betting itself.

The debate has sharpened as sports wagering has become a mainstream mobile product. Online sportsbooks compete on ease of use, speed of deposits and frequent promotions. Regulators and responsible gambling advocates increasingly argue that those same features can make it harder for vulnerable bettors to pause before losses turn into debt. Credit cards add another layer because deposits may be treated as cash advances, carrying fees and interest on top of betting losses.

Ohio’s regulator has framed the change as a targeted payment restriction, not a rollback of legalized sports betting. But the proposal lands in a state where criticism of the market has grown since launch. Gov. Mike DeWine has said he regrets signing the law that legalized online sports betting, and lawmakers have floated measures ranging from payment limits to proposals that would unwind mobile wagering altogether.

Operators moved before some states did

The Ohio rule also reflects a market reality: several major operators have already abandoned credit card deposits in the U.S., limiting the immediate disruption if the state adopts a formal ban. DraftKings, FanDuel, Caesars Entertainment, BetMGM and Bet365 had all moved away from credit cards in Ohio before the commission’s latest step, according to prior reporting on the regulator’s draft rule.

FanDuel’s decision was a turning point because it signaled that the largest operators were no longer waiting for state-by-state mandates. The company said it had reviewed its payment methods and removed credit cards across sportsbook, casino and racing products in the U.S. That move followed scrutiny from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who pressed the company before the Super Bowl over credit card policies and fees. Warren cited concerns that bettors could face substantial “junk fees” tied to card-funded gambling transactions. The shift is detailed in FanDuel’s announcement banning credit card deposits.

BetMGM later joined that trend after a Pennsylvania enforcement action exposed weaknesses in fraud controls. The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board issued a US$100,000 fine after investigators found identity-verification failures, including accounts opened with stolen or fabricated identities. One case involved 119 accounts across BetMGM and Borgata, with nearly US$900,000 wagered. Another involved more than 1,500 accounts and stolen payment methods. BetMGM’s subsequent card ban, covered in BetMGM’s post-settlement prohibition on credit card transactions, showed that payment restrictions are being tied not only to problem gambling but also to fraud prevention and compliance risk.

Massachusetts showed the cost of getting it wrong

For regulators, Massachusetts has become a cautionary example of the enforcement burden that comes with payment restrictions. The state prohibited credit cards for sports betting when legal wagering launched in 2023. DraftKings later drew a US$450,000 fine from the Massachusetts Gaming Commission after the regulator found the company had accepted impermissible credit card-funded wagers.

The violations were not massive compared with national sportsbook handle, but they were material for compliance purposes. Massachusetts said 218 customers placed 1,160 prohibited wagers funded by 242 credit card deposits, totaling $83,667.92 in handle. DraftKings was ordered to return affected deposits and submit to a third-party review to determine whether additional violations occurred during the launch period. The case, outlined in the Massachusetts fine against DraftKings for accepting credit card wagers, underscored that even limited payment failures can produce significant penalties.

That enforcement history matters for Ohio because a ban is only as strong as the systems used to block transactions. Sportsbooks operate across many states, each with different rules on payment methods, advertising, account controls and responsible gambling obligations. A state-level ban requires operators and payment processors to correctly identify prohibited transactions, maintain audit trails and prevent workarounds. Massachusetts demonstrated that regulators are willing to penalize failures even when violations involve a small share of a company’s overall betting activity.

Lawmakers are connecting payments to broader market concerns

Credit card policy has become a gateway issue for lawmakers who are uncomfortable with the pace and scale of online sports betting. In Ohio, earlier legislation included a credit card ban as one piece of a wider effort to revise the state’s sports betting framework. A more aggressive proposal, the Save Ohio Sports Act, would make online sports betting illegal altogether and add restrictions to retail betting.

Those proposals followed scandals involving athletes and proposition bets, which intensified criticism of sports wagering’s integration with professional sports. DeWine’s public regret over legalization gave political weight to concerns that the state moved too quickly when it approved mobile betting in 2021. The Ohio Casino Control Commission’s narrower rule could therefore serve as a politically viable step: It addresses a widely understood risk without requiring lawmakers to revisit legalization in full.

The responsible gambling case is straightforward. Advocates argue that bettors should be limited to funds they already have, such as cash or debit-linked deposits, rather than borrowing to gamble. Credit cards can mask the pace of losses, allow betting across multiple apps and create debt that compounds after the wager is settled. For regulators, banning credit cards is an administratively simple intervention compared with more complex limits on deposits, advertising or bet types.

Maine points to a wider legislative pattern

Ohio is not alone in considering the issue. Maine lawmakers have also advanced a proposal to bar credit cards from online sports betting, arguing that online wagering creates risks distinct from casino gambling because deposits can be made instantly from anywhere. State Rep. Marc Malon, the sponsor of the Maine bill, said the goal was to prevent bettors from gambling beyond their means. The proposal would still allow online sports betting but block credit cards and debit cards tied to borrowing.

Maine’s debate, described in the state’s proposed credit card ban for online sports bets, is notable because it comes as the state is also expanding regulated gambling. Gov. Janet Mills recently allowed legislation authorizing the Wabanaki Nations to operate igaming to become law, while raising concerns about public health effects. That dual track — permitting growth while adding safeguards — mirrors the direction of policy in several states.

The Maine example also highlights how lawmakers are borrowing logic from land-based gambling rules. Maine already bars credit card use for slot machine gambling at casinos. Supporters of the online betting restriction argue that the same principle should apply to sportsbook apps, where the speed of play and constant availability can make losses harder to contain.

The stakes are now compliance, politics and consumer protection

For Ohio sportsbooks, the practical near-term impact may be modest because major brands have already stopped accepting credit cards. The larger consequence is regulatory. A formal ban creates a clear standard that can be audited and enforced, reducing ambiguity for operators and giving the commission another tool to police the market.

For the industry, the trend signals that payment policy is becoming a baseline responsible gambling requirement. Operators that voluntarily remove credit cards can present the move as consumer protection and reduce exposure to state enforcement. Those that wait for mandates risk fines, reputational damage and political scrutiny, especially as lawmakers link gambling debt to broader questions about the social costs of mobile betting.

For states, credit card bans are an incremental response to a larger policy dilemma. Sports betting generates tax revenue and consumer demand is clear. But the same market has produced scandals, compliance failures and mounting concern about gambling harm. Ohio’s proposed rule does not settle those issues. It shows that regulators are moving to tighten the edges of a market that expanded quickly, with credit card debt emerging as one of the clearest places to draw a line.