Google Bans Prediction-Market Ads in Ohio — Second State After Nevada, and Regulators Weren't Told First
Google updated its US prediction-markets advertising policy to prohibit ads for prediction-market contracts in Ohio, effective June 2, 2026. Ohio joins Nevada as the only states excluded since Google opened the category in January. The Ohio Casino Control Commission says it did not request the ban — adding a new, private-sector front to a fight that has so far run through courts and statehouses.
Google has updated its prediction-markets advertising policy to prohibit ads for prediction-market contracts and related products in Ohio, effective June 2, 2026. The policy change makes Ohio the second US state excluded from the category since Google opened it in January 2026, when the company began allowing prediction-market advertising in every state except Nevada. Google's policy page states the change directly: "In June 2026, Google will update our Prediction markets policy in the United States to prohibit the advertisement of prediction markets contracts and related products ads in Ohio. Consequently, advertising of prediction markets and related products in Ohio is prohibited effective June 2, 2026." The eligibility rules elsewhere are unchanged: CFTC-registered Designated Contract Markets and National Futures Association-authorized brokerages can advertise, provided they hold Google certifications.
The notable detail is that Ohio's own gaming regulator did not ask for the ban. "The Ohio Casino Control Commission did not solicit any particular action from Google, but applauds Google for its efforts to ensure that marketing targeting Ohioans fully complies with Ohio law," OCCC interim executive director Andromeda Morrison said in a statement to Gambling Insider. Google acting ahead of — rather than in response to — a regulator's request is a meaningful data point. The likeliest reading is that Google's policy team is tracking state-level enforcement posture and de-risking proactively: Ohio sent cease-and-desist orders to Kalshi, Crypto.com, and Robinhood in April 2025, making it one of the earliest state enforcers even though it never escalated to litigation the way Arizona, Wisconsin, or Rhode Island later did.
The Ohio action adds a third front to a fight that has so far run through two: federal courts (the CFTC's six state preemption suits, with the Arizona preliminary injunction as the template) and statehouses (Minnesota's felony ban, fifteen-plus state bills). Ad-platform policy is different in kind. Google is not a party to any litigation and is under no court order; it is making a private commercial judgment about regulatory risk, state by state. That judgment matters operationally because paid search is a primary acquisition channel for every consumer trading product. A platform that wins its preemption case in federal court but cannot advertise in a state has won the legal argument and lost the growth channel. And unlike a court ruling, Google's policy can change in either direction at any time, with no docket to watch.
Two implications follow. First, the Nevada-plus-Ohio list is unlikely to stay at two. Google's stated logic — compliance with state law — applies at least as strongly to Minnesota, where operating a prediction market becomes a felony on August 1 unless the federal court intervenes. If Google applies the policy consistently, Minnesota should be the next addition, and the litigation-state list (Arizona, Wisconsin, Illinois, Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island) is the watch list after that. Second, the asymmetry hurts smaller operators most. Kalshi, Robinhood, and DraftKings have brand recognition and owned channels; a newer entrant relying on paid acquisition to build awareness in a 11.8-million-person state just lost its primary tool. For Ohio residents nothing changes about platform access itself: Kalshi, Robinhood, and the other CFTC-licensed venues remain available in Ohio. What changes is what they are allowed to show you.
Recent updates
Utah Files Felony Charges Against Kalshi and Its Founders — Second State to Criminally Charge a Platform
Utah filed criminal charges against Kalshi and its two co-founders, Tarek Mansour and Luana Lopes Lara, on October 28 — 13 felonies and a misdemeanor, including a second-degree 'pattern of unlawful criminal activity' count and 12 counts of online gambling promotion. The charges stem from a September sting in which an undercover agent placed 12 sports wagers verified to be in Utah. The CFTC sued Utah the day before to block state enforcement, its tenth such suit. Utah is the second state after Arizona to criminally charge Kalshi, and the first to charge the founders personally. Kalshi called it a 'crazy overreach.'
NBA Names Kalshi and Polymarket Preferred Exchanges — Leaving the NFL Alone in Opposition
The NBA announced on October 26 that it has named Kalshi and Polymarket its 'preferred prediction market exchanges,' signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding with the CFTC on basketball integrity, and expanded its DraftKings deal to include prediction markets — the first league to extend a sportsbook partnership into the category. The exchange deals bar league and team personnel from trading NBA contracts, limit permissible markets, and require sharing of suspicious-trading data, in exchange for NBA intellectual property and official data. The NBA joins MLB, the NHL, and MLS as partnered leagues, leaving the NFL as the lone major holdout — and the only league fighting the platforms in court.
CFTC Chair Says Agency Is Watching Prediction Markets for Manipulation Ahead of Midterms
CFTC Chairman Michael Selig said on October 23 that the agency is closely monitoring prediction markets for manipulation ahead of the November 3 midterms, and that it is separately scrutinizing oil market trading tied to President Trump's announcements about the war in Iran. Combined midterm open interest on Kalshi and Polymarket stood at $250 million as of October 18, with Kalshi holding 84%. Selig acknowledged the agency often catches political figures attempting to trade 'oftentimes after the fact.' The remarks highlight the CFTC's dual and somewhat conflicting role as both the platforms' federal protector and their manipulation watchdog, at a time when the agency has shed enforcement staff.