Is Novig legal in Ohio?

The two-page letter went by certified mail on October 2, 2026. It is addressed to Novig Betting, Inc. at a New York address and to Ludlow Exchange, LLC care of its registered agent in Dover, Delaware, and it treats the two together as "Novig" (p.1). Interim Executive Director Andromeda Morrison signed it (p.2). We could not find the original on the Commission's own site, so the link is to a hosted copy.

The letter opens by asserting jurisdiction over everyone conducting sports gaming in Ohio, citing R.C. 3775.02(A). Its reasoning, step by step, is the Commission's reading of Ohio law (p.1):

• What Novig offers. Based on Novig's online content, it says, a person picks which team will win or whether a player will hit a statistic, and "[t]he ultimate result is money being won or lost based on the outcome of a game."
• The license. Sports gaming in Ohio needs a Commission license under R.C. 3775.03(A), and a business offers it when it accepts wagers on sporting events.
• The definition. Ohio's General Assembly defines a wager as "to risk a sum of money or thing of value on an uncertain occurrence" (R.C. 3775.01(DD)). Anyone accepting value staked on a game without a license, the letter concludes, is breaking the sports gaming law.

It then goes beyond gaming licenses. It calls unlicensed sports gaming bookmaking under the criminal code, R.C. Chapter 2915, which defines bookmaking as "the business of receiving or paying off bets" (p.2). The demand reaches past Novig's own app: it covers "soliciting or accepting orders for sports event contracts listed on DCMs from persons located in Ohio," and running any futures commission merchant or designated contract market that offers them to people in Ohio (p.2).

The letter lists what it says the Commission could pursue, and none of it has been imposed in any record we found:

• A felony. Operating sports gaming outside Chapter 3775 is a felony, it says, citing R.C. 3775.99(B)(9) (p.2).
• A nuisance. It calls Novig's online content, website included, a nuisance subject to abatement under R.C. Chapter 3767 (p.2).
• A civil penalty. It says the Commission can impose a fine as large as the money Novig obtained or retained from people in Ohio through sports event contracts, citing R.C. 3775.02(H)(1)(a), R.C. 3772.04(B) and Ohio Adm. Code 3775-1-08 (p.2).

It adds that remedies could reach Novig's officers, directors and parent companies. Those are powers the letter asserts; we found none exercised against Novig.

The letter leans on one court decision. It says that on September 25, 2026 the Sixth Circuit "held that the Commodity Exchange Act neither applies to these sports event contracts nor preempts Ohio's sports gaming law," and that the decision "makes clear that Ohio's sports gaming laws apply to Novig's sports event contracts" (p.2). That is the Commission's description.

The opinion itself, KalshiEX v. Schuler (Nos. 26-3196 and 26-5235), puts it this way: Kalshi "has not shown that its sports-event contracts satisfy the statutory definition of a 'swap'," and, even assuming they are swaps, federal commodities law "neither expressly nor impliedly preempts Ohio's or Tennessee's gambling laws" (p.3). It affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction to Kalshi and sent the case back for further proceedings (p.49). Novig and Ludlow are not parties and are not mentioned.

Kalshi filed a petition on October 9, 2026 asking the full court to rehear the case. We did not read the court's docket for this check, so we cannot say whether it has ruled. The case, step by step, is on Kalshi in Ohio.

The letter asked Novig to tell the Commission in writing, within fourteen days, that it had complied (p.2). Counted from October 2, that ran to October 16, 2026.

As of October 28, 2026, we found no follow-up from either side: no fine notice, hearing or lawsuit from the Commission naming Novig or Ludlow, no suit by Ludlow against Ohio officials, and no public reply from Novig. We did not query court dockets for this check, and court indexes lag the courts' own systems, so a filing could exist that we have not seen.

Novig has not answered the Ohio letter in any document we found, so its position comes from its own help pages and its federal court filings. Its Eligibility & Legality page, dated September 2, 2026, says that "Novig operates a CFTC-regulated prediction market" and that its legal basis "rests on federal regulation rather than the state-by-state licensing a sportsbook needs." The CFTC designated Ludlow Exchange, LLC a contract market by an order issued June 16, 2026.

On August 14, 2026, Ludlow sued Wisconsin's attorney general and gaming administrator in federal court (W.D. Wis. No. 3:26-cv-00761). Its complaint calls event contracts "quintessential 'swaps'" that "can only be traded on federally regulated exchanges" (p.2, ¶5). The Sixth Circuit's Ohio ruling took up that definition for Kalshi's sports contracts and held Kalshi had not shown they meet it. The complaint names Wisconsin officials only.

We could not determine whether anything has changed for Ohio users. Novig's eligibility page, read October 28, 2026, says Novig "is available nationwide, with the exception of Nevada, Arizona, and Michigan." It does not mention Ohio or the Commission's letter; the page is dated September 2, a month before the letter.

The letter itself is a demand to stop offering sports event contracts. It says nothing about money already in an account, withdrawals or positions still open, and we found no Ohio court order that does. Every state where Novig faces an action is on the Novig legal page.

Yes, by Polymarket US's account. Its complaint against Ohio's attorney general and the Commission, QCX LLC v. Wilson (S.D. Ohio No. 2:26-cv-01502, filed October 16, 2026), says the Commission sent "Polymarket US and nine other businesses the cease and desist letter at issue here" (p.28, ¶83). It does not name the other nine, and Novig is not a party to that suit. Polymarket in Ohio follows it.

The Commission's dispute with Kalshi is older. The Schuler opinion says Kalshi sued after the Commission indicated it intended to bring an enforcement action against it (p.3).

The Commission's letter is about whether Novig needs an Ohio sports gaming license, which is a state licensing question and not a ruling on federal income tax. How a Novig year comes out under the three ways we most often see people file is on Novig taxes, since the IRS has issued no guidance on event contracts.