Ohio lawmakers propose online sports betting ban
Republican lawmakers in Ohio have introduced legislation that would tighten regulations on sports betting across the state.
The proposal, backed by several Republican representatives, aims to overhaul the current system by imposing limits on how, where, and how often people can place wagers.
The bill proposes banning mobile and online betting. If successful, any legal wagering will have to take place in person at licensed locations. The bill will also seek to cap individual wagers and potentially ban certain types of bets, including in-game wagering, prop bets, and parlays.
Additionally, the legislation would prohibit the use of credit cards for gambling and introduce tighter controls on advertising, particularly promotions designed to attract new users.
One of the main supporters of the potential legislation, Rep. Riordan McClain, said, “The addictive nature of gambling combined with the modern technology in our pockets today provides us with 24/7 access and limitless options to place bets that have become a problem for many.”
Another supporter of the bill, Rep. Johnathan Newman, added, “What we’re trying to do is provide some lines on the freeway, some guardrails, some off ramps, and some speed limits to rein in some great harms that we see.”
He referenced previous calls from Gov. Mike DeWine to ban in-play and prop bets after federal authorities charged two Cleveland Guardians pitchers for allegedly rigging their pitches for the purpose of gambling.
Verticals:
Sectors:
Topics:
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
From swift legalization to mounting backlash
Ohio’s rapid embrace of legal sports betting set the stage for today’s proposed clampdown. After wagering launched statewide with mobile access and brick-and-mortar options, concerns over advertising saturation, player safety and game integrity escalated. Those fears intensified as scandals hit professional and college athletics, drawing scrutiny to how easily bets can be placed and how prop and in-game wagers can be weaponized against athletes.
Gov. Mike DeWine, who signed the state’s legalization measure in 2021, has since become one of its sharpest critics. He told the Associated Press he now regrets his role in making sports betting legal, citing the financial muscle and reach of betting companies and the fallout from high-profile investigations. That reversal, detailed in coverage of DeWine’s change of heart, framed a policy turn from expansion to restraint, with the governor calling for tighter rules on how wagers are offered and promoted.
That pivot has not occurred in a vacuum. Lawmakers and regulators have faced pressure to show they can limit harm without dismantling a legal market that has generated sizable tax revenue since launch. The political calculation is now shifting again, with some legislators seeking to limit where bets can be placed and which types are allowed, while reining in marketing practices and the use of credit to gamble.
Prop bets become a flashpoint
DeWine has zeroed in on proposition bets as a key driver of risk. Following a Major League Baseball investigation that led to two Cleveland Guardians pitchers, Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz, being placed on paid leave, he urged the Ohio Casino Control Commission to remove prop bets from the legal market. He said micro prop bets, which hinge on a single player’s action, posed particular threats to athletes and integrity. The governor’s stance and outreach to major leagues were outlined in reporting on his call for sports betting changes.
That push met immediate resistance in the General Assembly. Republican Rep. Brian Stewart argued that adult consumers should be free to place such wagers and pointed to the state’s strong tax haul since legalization. He said prop bets represent a substantial share of that revenue and should stay legal, even as he voiced support for reinstating college prop bets that Ohio had previously banned. His comments and political calculus are detailed in coverage of Stewart’s opposition.
The split exposes a core tension: how to address harassment of athletes and integrity concerns without eroding a significant chunk of taxable activity or forcing bettors to offshore or unregulated platforms. It also sets the stage for broader reforms that go beyond a single bet type to target where and how bets are placed in the first place.
A legislative pendulum swings toward restriction
The new proposal to curtail mobile access and narrow the menu of allowed bets amplifies the governor’s earlier warnings and reflects a belief among some lawmakers that convenience has outpaced safeguards. Supporters say in-person wagering at licensed venues could limit impulsive betting and improve age and identity controls. They also see caps on individual wagers, tighter marketing rules and a ban on credit-card funding as tools to slow harmful behavior without eliminating legal wagering altogether.
DeWine’s regret over legalization, laid out in prior reporting on his shift, adds political cover to a tougher stance. So does the MLB case, highlighted in the governor’s call to act, which linked alleged misconduct and athlete threats to the availability of micro-targeted bets. Together, these developments form the backbone of the argument for dialing back online wagering and curbing high-velocity betting options.
Opponents will likely counter that outlawing mobile betting penalizes the large majority of responsible bettors while pushing activity into gray markets. They will argue that enforcement, data sharing with leagues, and targeted restrictions on the riskiest products can deliver integrity gains without dismantling the digital channel that most consumers prefer.
National currents point in different directions
Ohio’s debate is unfolding as other jurisdictions move the opposite way or focus on narrower interventions. In Wisconsin, lawmakers proposed expanding from on-site tribal sportsbooks to online betting operated by tribes, with servers on tribal land and no entry for national brands such as DraftKings or FanDuel. The sponsors framed the bill as modernization that preserves tribal sovereignty and keeps pace with most U.S. markets, while public health advocates warned of higher addiction risks online. The contours of that approach are laid out in coverage of Wisconsin’s online sports betting bill.
Internationally, some policymakers are targeting the promotional environment rather than access channels. In Tasmania, two independent lawmakers have pushed to ban gambling ads and sponsorships at state-owned venues, citing evidence that saturation normalizes betting for children and young adults. Their plan would extend to a planned stadium and team uniforms. The pitch, detailed in reporting on Tasmania’s proposed ad restrictions, underscores a growing focus on exposure reduction as a complement or alternative to product bans.
These divergent paths reflect different readings of what drives harm: the frictionless ease of online betting and micro markets, or the constant marketing that keeps gambling top of mind. Ohio’s pending choices will signal which theory of change its leaders prioritize.
What’s at stake for operators, teams and bettors
A mobile ban would redraw Ohio’s sports betting map overnight. Operators that invested heavily in app-based customer acquisition could see user counts and handle fall sharply, with revenue migrating to casinos, racinos and retail sportsbooks—or leaving the legal market. Teams that have embraced betting partnerships may see reduced activation and sponsorship value, especially if in-game and prop markets are curtailed.
For regulators, the trade-off runs through integrity and enforcement. Limiting online prop markets could curb harassment and reduce opportunities for corruption tied to isolated player actions. But shrinking the legal footprint might also complicate monitoring, since unregulated channels provide less data and fewer tools to flag suspicious activity.
Bettors would face fewer options and more friction. In-person requirements increase time and travel costs, while bans on credit cards and tighter promotions reduce liquidity and incentives. Supporters say those frictions are features, not bugs—guardrails that slow risky behavior and help curb problem gambling before it escalates.
Ohio’s next moves will likely blend headline restrictions with technical tweaks, shaped by negotiations among the governor, legislative leaders and the Casino Control Commission. The political rift over prop bets, mapped in reporting on Stewart’s opposition, suggests any final package will be contested. But the governor’s reversal and the MLB episode, captured in his admission of regret and his push to restrict prop bets, have moved the policy center of gravity toward tighter controls. Whether Ohio opts for a scalpel or a cleaver will determine how much of its digital betting market survives—and how other states read the risks of their own next steps.
