Ohio Considers Ban on Mobile Sports Betting: A Setback for the Market

Republican lawmakers in Ohio have introduced the "Save Ohio Sports Act" (House Bill 971). This bill seeks to completely ban online and mobile sports betting. If passed, only in-person betting at the state's four licensed casinos would be allowed in the future.

This initiative represents a significant intervention in Ohio's thriving sports betting market. Mobile platforms currently account for approximately 98.5% of the state's total betting handle. The proposed changes would not only fundamentally alter how betting is conducted but also the entire market structure.

Numbers and facts

House Bill 971, introduced by representatives like Johnathan Newman, aims to completely abolish online and mobile sports betting. Only betting terminals in the four existing casinos would remain legal. Furthermore, sharp restrictions on bet types are planned: * Proposition bets on individual player statistics, in-game wagering, and parlays would be prohibited. * Only single-game bets on final outcomes would remain legal. * Wagering on college sports would be completely banned. * Single wagers would be capped at 100 US dollars. * Bettors would be limited to eight wagers within a 24-hour period. * Credit cards would no longer be allowed for funding sportsbook accounts. * Sports betting advertisements at sports venues and during live broadcasts would be prohibited.

The legislative initiative, which is still awaiting committee assignment, follows a busy year in 2025 with approximately 210 million US dollars in tax revenue from legal sports betting. Of this amount, retail sportsbooks generated only about 1 million US dollars. In November 2025, Ohio's sports betting market achieved revenue of 133 million US dollars, a significant increase of 35.5% over October. The betting handle exceeded 1.15 billion US dollars, with online bets accounting for 1.003 billion US dollars. FanDuel led the market with 55.4 million US dollars in revenue, followed by DraftKings with 39.3 million US dollars.

Background

The legislative initiative is driven by concerns about sports integrity and player protection. A corruption case from 2025 involving Cleveland Guardians pitchers Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz was cited as a catalyst. They allegedly accepted bribes to influence micro-bets on specific in-game outcomes.

Representative Newman framed the proposal as a response to both integrity and public health concerns. He stated: > “Monetizing addiction to fund public education is the wrong direction for Ohio.” - Rep. Newman, Ohio State Representative

Beth Lear also expressed support, emphasizing that the legislation prioritizes families over tax revenue. The Center for Christian Virtue, a faith-based group in Columbus, actively supports the bill. President Aaron Baer argues that Ohio's current model has led to "rising addiction" and financial hardship. Supporters point to 2023 data showing a 227% increase in calls to Ohio's gambling addiction hotline in the first month after mobile apps launched.

Governor Mike DeWine, who signed the 2021 law legalizing sports betting, has expressed regret. He stated in previous interviews that he considered it a mistake and would sign a repeal measure if it reached him.

Online betting operators and budgetary officials are opposing the initiative. Major operators like DraftKings and FanDuel have reportedly formed a Super PAC with a 48 million US dollar budget to influence local elections and oppose the bill. This resistance is already showing effects, as former co-sponsors, Representatives Riordan McClain and Gary Click, withdrew their support before the formal introduction. Senator Nathan Manning also criticized the bill as "short-sighted" and warned of a reduction in state funding for schools and addiction prevention.

Why it matters for German players

The Ohio case demonstrates an extreme reaction to developments in the gambling market. While Ohio considers a complete ban on mobile sports betting, Germany, with the State Treaty on Gaming 2021 (GlüStV 2021), offers a regulated framework. This treaty established the Joint Gaming Authority of the Federal States (GGL), which ensures compliance with a comprehensive catalog of protective measures.

For German players, this means they should use providers listed on the GGL whitelist. Only these providers are subject to strict requirements for player protection and crime prevention. These include the deposit limit of 1,000 euros per month via the nationwide monitoring system LUGAS and the stake limit of 1 euro per spin for online slots. These measures are intended to prevent problem gambling and keep players in a safe environment.

Illegal offerings, not licensed by the GGL, such as many providers under MGA or Curacao licenses, circumvent these important protective measures. They often offer higher stakes and no self-exclusion options. Those who play with such providers expose themselves to high risks and enjoy no legal protection. Providers outside the GGL whitelist are not permitted in Germany and should be avoided.

What it means for GGL-licensed casinos

The Ohio case highlights the importance of a clear and consistent regulatory framework. In Germany, the existence of the GGL whitelist ensures transparency and security. For licensed online casinos in Germany, the strict requirements of GlüStV 2021 mean greater acceptance and trustworthiness. The German market has deliberately opted for regulation that allows online gambling under certain conditions, rather than potentially completely shutting it down as in Ohio. The GGL is therefore committed to making legal offers attractive and secure through continuous monitoring and adaptation to keep players away from the black market. For GGL casinos, it is crucial to see player protection measures such as LUGAS and deposit limits as an opportunity to promote responsible gaming and thus be successful in the long term.