Polymarket Sues Ohio; Novig, Crypto.com's OG Sue Missouri

Polymarket US sued Ohio, and Novig and Crypto.com's OG.com sued Missouri, in federal court on October 16, 2026, arguing that federal commodities law puts their sports event contracts beyond the states' cease-and-desist letters. None of the three cases involves a sweepstakes casino, and nothing in them changes where you can play Sweeps Coins.

We pulled all three complaints from the federal court record and read them in full. Each asks a judge to declare that the Commodity Exchange Act puts sports event contracts on a federally designated exchange beyond the reach of state gambling law, and to bar the state from enforcing against it. Polymarket's Ohio complaint adds a second claim, that Ohio's licensing system discriminates against interstate commerce.

Who sued, and in which court?

All three were docketed on October 16, so Novig filed a day before its own deadline. The CourtListener entries for all three cases, and each court's own public filing feed for October 19 and 20, show no motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, and no judge has ruled on anything. The Missouri letters themselves are in our September report on Missouri's six cease-and-desist letters.

What happened, and when?

1. September 16, 2026: Missouri's attorney general writes to Crypto.com, giving it 30 days.
2. September 17: Missouri's letter to Novig, also with 30 days.
3. September 25: the Sixth Circuit rules against Kalshi in its Ohio case.
4. October 2: the Ohio Casino Control Commission writes to ten prediction-market companies, including Polymarket, giving each 14 days.
5. October 9: the CFTC issues the interim final rule and proposed rule that Polymarket's complaint relies on.
6. October 16: the Ohio and OG.com deadlines fall, and all three complaints are docketed.
7. October 17: Novig's Missouri deadline falls.
8. October 19 and 20: no motion for a restraining order or preliminary injunction on any of the three dockets, and no ruling.

What did Ohio send Polymarket?

The Ohio Casino Control Commission sent cease-and-desist letters to ten prediction-market companies on October 2. Signal Ohio, Casino.com and News5 Cleveland each reported the same ten names: Polymarket, Novig, Coinbase, Robinhood, Underdog Predict, ProphetX, Gemini Titan, Webull, Plus500 and Moomoo. Kalshi was not on the list. It had already lost to Ohio in the Sixth Circuit. Polymarket's complaint backs up the count, saying the Commission sent the letter to "Polymarket US and nine other businesses".

The complaint quotes Polymarket's own letter at length. It demands that Polymarket "immediately cease and desist from offering" sports event contracts to people in Ohio "without a license issued by the Commission", and that it confirm compliance in writing "no later than fourteen (14) days following the date of th[e] letter." It says "[p]lainly stated, Polymarket is operating online sports gaming" and is "clearly engaged in bookmaking or facilitating bookmaking in violation of Ohio civil and criminal law." It warns of "administrative, civil, nuisance, or criminal actions" and a civil penalty equal to the money Polymarket "unlawfully obtained or retained" from Ohio users.

The letter rests on the Sixth Circuit's September 25 ruling in Kalshi's case, which the complaint says the Commission cited as having made "clear that Ohio's sports gaming laws apply". We covered that decision when it landed: Kalshi lost to Ohio and Tennessee in the Sixth Circuit.

Polymarket's answer is that the ground has moved since then. The complaint leans on the CFTC's October 9 interim final rule and proposed rule, which it says "remove any doubt" that event contracts are swaps under exclusive federal jurisdiction. It also argues that Ohio's licensing system, which ties a sports-gaming licence to a physical presence in the state, discriminates against interstate commerce. It is the same preemption argument Polymarket made when it sued New York's attorney general and Gaming Commission on September 24. One detail in a footnote: the letter "was addressed to 'PM US Tech (QC Tech LLC),' not QCX LLC d/b/a Polymarket US."

Polymarket is the only one of the ten to have sued Ohio. A CourtListener search for new Southern District of Ohio cases against the attorney general returned only Polymarket's. Novig, which sued Missouri the same day, has not filed against Ohio.

What are Novig and OG.com arguing in Missouri?

The same preemption argument, filed in Missouri's two federal districts. Novig has run it before, in its August suits against Massachusetts, Washington and New Mexico and its Wisconsin case. Novig's 42-page complaint says Hanaway's letter gave it "30 days, until October 17, 2026" to comply. OG.com's 39-page complaint says its letter, dated September 16, threatened that "the State of Missouri will take legal action against Crypto.com."

OG.com also has an addressee point, like Polymarket's: the letter was "incorrectly addressed" to "Foris DAX, Inc. ('Crypto.com')" rather than North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. The complaint describes OG.com as a separate platform the exchange launched in February 2026 and cites Crypto.com's own announcement of it.

Novig's filing adds one fact to our September report, which found that Missouri's letter to Novig was the only one of the six with no under-21 allegation. The complaint states that Novig's rulebook, amended on August 12, 2026, allows only participants "at least 21 years of age" to trade. That amendment predates the September 17 letter. Novig is also the one plaintiff with a sweepstakes past: it ran Novig Cash and Novig Coins until it retired its sweepstakes model in August. Neither Missouri complaint mentions that history.

Four of the six companies Missouri wrote to have not sued. A CourtListener caption search on Hanaway's name, run on October 20, returned only the Novig and OG.com cases filed since October 10. Casino.com also reported on October 20 that Kalshi and Polymarket had not sued Missouri. Robinhood and Underdog have not sued either.

Does any of this affect sweepstakes casinos in Ohio or Missouri?

No. The Ohio letter, as quoted in the complaint, is about sports event contracts and Ohio's sports-gaming licence. The Missouri letters, as the complaints describe them, rest on the state's constitutional sports-wagering provisions, Mo. Const. art. III, section 39(g). None of the three complaints names a sweepstakes operator. Sweeps play is still available in Ohio, where the live risk is two pending bills that would legalize online casinos and ban the dual-currency model, and in Missouri. Our guide to whether sweepstakes casinos are legal explains the legal basis those sites rely on.

These lawsuits also offer sweeps operators no route of their own. The whole case rests on a CFTC designation, which sweepstakes casinos do not have, and the October 9 rule that Polymarket relies on expressly leaves casino-style games outside the CFTC's reach. If you are choosing where to play, our ranked list of sweepstakes casinos shows which brands accept each state.

What should players with prediction-market accounts do?

No court has ordered either state to stand down, and neither state has filed an enforcement action that we can find. Ohio says it will. News5 Cleveland reported that at the close of business on October 16 "most platforms were still up and unchanged". It quoted Attorney General Wilson: "They need to come into compliance, or we're gonna force them into compliance." The same report quoted Governor Mike DeWine saying "that's what we're going to do" about filing suits. None of the three complaints says the plaintiff has changed what it offers in either state.

If you hold a balance on any of the ten exchanges Ohio wrote to, or the six Missouri wrote to, the risk is a state lawsuit that forces an exit. Exits come with closure windows: a federal court order gave Robinhood's Michigan customers until October 9 to close open sports event contracts. Read the exchange's own notices before you trade, and do not leave more on the platform than you would be comfortable having tied up.

Sources & documents

• Complaint, QCX LLC v. Wilson, No. 2:26-cv-01502, ECF 1 (S.D. Ohio, filed October 16, 2026) - 46 pages; the October 2 letter, the "nine other businesses" passage, the addressee footnote and the defendants
• Complaint, Ludlow Exchange, LLC v. Hanaway, No. 4:26-cv-01780, ECF 1 (E.D. Mo., filed October 16, 2026) - 42 pages; the October 17 deadline and the 21+ rulebook amendment
• Complaint, North American Derivatives Exchange, Inc. v. Hanaway, No. 4:26-cv-00969, ECF 1 (W.D. Mo., filed October 16, 2026) - 39 pages; the September 16 letter and the Foris DAX addressee point
• CourtListener entry lists for the Ohio, Eastern District of Missouri and Western District of Missouri dockets, and a caption search on Hanaway - judges, filing dates and entries, read October 20, 2026; checked against each court's public filing feed for October 19 and 20
• Signal Ohio, "Ohio cracks down on prediction markets" - October 12, 2026; the ten recipients and the letter's signatory
• Casino.com, "Ohio Orders 10 Prediction Market Operators and Brokers to Stop Offering Sports Contracts" - October 6, 2026; the ten recipients and why Kalshi was not one of them
• News5 Cleveland, "Prediction market platforms ignoring Ohio's legal threats" - after the October 16 deadline; the platforms' status and the Wilson and DeWine quotations
• Casino.com, "Crypto.com, Novig Sue Missouri Over Prediction Market Restrictions" - October 20, 2026; trade report, used only for the statement that Kalshi and Polymarket had not sued Missouri

The claims in all three complaints are the plaintiffs' allegations and have not been tested in court. The quoted lines of Ohio's letter come from Polymarket's complaint; the letter is filed as Exhibit 1 but was not available on the free court record when we checked.

21+ only. Problem? Call or text 1-800-GAMBLER. Responsible gaming resources.