Ohio gaming regulator seeks to ban credit cards from sports wagering
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine’s administration has put forward a draft rule this week that would prevent residents from using credit cards to place sports bets.
The Ohio Casino Control Commission posted the draft on Monday and opened public comment through May 15. The regulator must then hold a public hearing and send the proposal to a state legislative panel for review, with the changes potentially taking effect later in the summer.
The rule would not apply to debit cards, which remained the most popular method for funding sports-betting accounts.
If adopted, Ohio would join at least nine other states that already barred credit cards for sports wagers.
The practical effect could be limited, as operators DraftKings, FanDuel, Caesars Entertainment, BetMGM, and Bet365 had already stopped accepting credit-card deposits over the past year.
Credit card companies also charged high fees and interest on sportsbook transactions, treating them as cash advances.
A credit card deposit ban was included in proposed legislation unveiled last month aimed at rolling back online sports gambling, which has been legal in Ohio since early 2023.
State Representative Gary Click, a co-sponsor of the bill, said during a news conference, “[Gambling addicts] lose and lose and lose, and then they figure out, how am I going to pay the bills? I just ran up my credit cards. Now I’m deeper in debt and nothing to show for it.”
Charlotte Capewell brings her passion for storytelling and expertise in writing, researching, and the gambling industry to every article she writes. Her specialties include the US gambling industry, regulator legislation, igaming, and more.
Verticals:
Sectors:
Topics:
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
Why the credit card ban is on the table now
Ohio’s push to bar credit cards for sports wagering comes after a year of incremental moves to tighten a market that launched online in early 2023 and quickly scaled. The Ohio Casino Control Commission this week opened public comment on a draft rule that would prohibit funding sports-betting accounts with credit cards, a step that mirrors restrictions already in place in several states and codifies what many operators have done voluntarily. DraftKings, FanDuel, Caesars, BetMGM and Bet365 stopped taking credit-card deposits over the past year as issuers treated those payments as cash advances, tacking on fees and interest that magnified losses for problem gamblers.
The proposed ban arrives alongside a broader debate over the reach of mobile wagering, the role of in-play markets and the state’s appetite for enforcement. While the rule could take effect later this summer after hearings and legislative review, its significance extends beyond payments: it marks the latest turn in a policy shift that favors slower growth, tighter consumer protections and firmer lines between regulated sportsbooks and adjacent betting products.
Guardrails multiply as lawmakers revisit legalization
The General Assembly’s most ambitious effort would go far beyond payment methods. A bloc of Republicans is backing a sweeping overhaul that would ban mobile and online sports betting outright, force wagers back to in-person venues, cap bet sizes and restrict entire categories such as in-game wagers, prop bets and parlays. Sponsors framed the package as “guardrails” to curb compulsive gambling enabled by smartphones, citing the ease of around-the-clock access. The bill also contemplates tighter restrictions on marketing incentives and a statutory ban on credit cards for gambling, echoing the administrative step now pending before regulators.
Even if that legislation stalls, it has shifted the center of gravity in Columbus. By putting an expansive rewrite on the table, lawmakers created political cover for narrower administrative actions like the credit card prohibition. It also signaled to operators that the state could move quickly from enforcement to structural reform if it deems current safeguards insufficient.
Prop bets become a political flashpoint
Gov. Mike DeWine has made player prop bets a priority target, urging regulators to remove them from the market following athlete threats and a high-profile baseball investigation. In a formal statement, he argued the harms outweigh the benefits and pressed the commission to act. The governor’s office amplified that stance in a call for action to the Ohio Casino Control Commission, which is detailed on the state’s site: DeWine calls on regulators to remove prop bets.
The push has met resistance. State Rep. Brian Stewart publicly opposed a ban, emphasizing tax receipts and consumer choice, and pledged to protect the category legislatively. His critique is outlined in a report on Stewart’s opposition, where he argues that props are popular with adult bettors and a meaningful contributor to revenue. The split underscores a broader tension: while the executive branch and some lawmakers want to narrow bet menus to reduce risks to athletes and game integrity, others warn that overreach could push consumers back to unregulated markets that still offer the same products without oversight.
Credit card funding sits at the intersection of that debate. It is a lever regulators can pull unilaterally that targets financial harm rather than specific bet types. If the commission finalizes the rule, Ohio would add an easily enforceable barrier that discourages chasing losses with borrowed money, without dictating which wagers adults can place.
A muscular stance on gray-market betting
Ohio’s posture has also hardened toward companies that straddle the line between regulated sportsbooks and financial exchanges. The commission levied a $5 million fine against prediction market Kalshi, arguing its sports-related event contracts amounted to unlicensed wagering under state law. Regulators said the platform continued to offer those products despite warnings to stop. The action put Ohio at the forefront of a national fight over whether event contracts are financial instruments under federal oversight or simply sports bets in new packaging.
Kalshi responded with a federal suit, seeking an injunction to block Ohio from interfering with its business and contending that Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight should preempt state gambling rules. The dispute, outlined in Kalshi’s lawsuit against the state, highlights the commission’s willingness to test the limits of its authority and send a message to licensed operators: partnerships or products that blur regulatory lines can jeopardize market access in Ohio. That tougher stance complements the credit card proposal by tightening control both over how consumers fund bets and which entities can legally offer them.
Signals from other states and the political calculus
Ohio is not moving in isolation. Maine lawmakers are considering a parallel step with LD 2080, a bill to ban credit cards for online sports bets, with supporters arguing that borrowed funds magnify harm for problem gamblers. The debate in Augusta has played out in local media, including WGME’s coverage of the proposal, and arrives as Maine expands igaming under tribal authority. The cross-state dynamic matters for operators that prefer uniform rules and for issuers calibrating risk models around gambling transactions.
Back in Columbus, the political incentives for a credit card ban are straightforward. The measure polls better than curbs on popular bet types, is operationally simple for sportsbooks, and can be framed as consumer protection without materially shrinking the legal market’s product set. It also harmonizes state rules with current operator practices, reducing friction while still allowing officials to claim progress on responsible gaming. If lawmakers later revive a broader crackdown on mobile betting or in-play markets, the credit card rule would stand as a baseline safeguard rather than a bargaining chip.
What to watch next
The commission’s comment window runs through mid-May, followed by a hearing and review by a legislative panel. Operators are likely to focus on implementation details, such as clarifying treatment of debit cards tied to overdraft features and ensuring consistency across retail and online channels. Problem-gambling advocates will push for data reporting on deposit methods and escalations to inform future policy.
Meanwhile, pressure around prop bets will persist as leagues and players’ associations weigh in, especially if new integrity cases surface. The legislature’s sweeping proposal to ban online betting could fade or be repackaged into narrower bills targeting in-play wagering, promotions or advertising. And the Kalshi litigation will test where state authority ends and federal oversight begins, a boundary that could shape the next wave of products vying to enter the gambling ecosystem.
Taken together, Ohio’s credit card proposal is less an isolated rule than a marker in a broader recalibration. The state is signaling it intends to keep legal betting but with stricter lines: less leverage, clearer accountability and fewer gray areas. For an industry built on frictionless deposits and expansive menus, that shift matters—both in Ohio and wherever other regulators take their cues.
