Ohio Bill HB 971 Seeks to Ban Online Sports Betting and Cap Wagers at $100

Robert Harris

Uncategorized

July 3, 2026

1 Views

Ohio lawmakers have introduced House Bill 971, a sweeping piece of legislation that would eliminate online sports betting entirely from one of America’s most active legal wagering markets. Sponsored by Representative Jonathan Newman, the bill targets every major format of modern sports betting, from parlays to player props, and would force Ohio’s millions of registered bettors back to physical casino floors. The Ohio sports betting industry, which launched on January 1, 2023, generated over $3.8 billion in total handle in its first full year of operation.

By Robert Harris | July 3, 2026

Ohio House Bill 971 Proposes the Most Restrictive Sports Betting Rules in the U.S.

A Full Online Ban, Not Just a Tweak

House Bill 971 does not propose minor adjustments to Ohio’s existing sports betting framework. It proposes to dismantle it. The legislation, introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives, would make online sports betting entirely illegal in the state, stripping licenses from every digital operator currently active in Ohio, including DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, and Caesars Sportsbook. If enacted, Ohio would become the first state in the modern era to reverse a full online sports betting legalization.

The bill’s reach extends well beyond the online-versus-retail divide. HB 971 would ban betting on credit, a provision targeting the growing practice of operators extending lines of credit to high-volume bettors. It would also restrict advertising for sports betting products, a direct response to the saturation of gambling promotions across Ohio television, radio, and digital platforms since the market opened in January 2023 [1].

Representative Newman’s legislation also targets specific bet types that have driven the explosive growth of the legal sports betting industry nationally. Parlay bets, which combine multiple selections into a single high-risk, high-reward wager, would be prohibited outright. Live in-game betting, which accounts for a significant and growing share of total handle at major operators, would also be eliminated under the bill’s terms.

The $100 Cap and Eight-Bet Daily Limit

Even for the in-person betting that HB 971 would preserve at brick-and-mortar casinos, the bill imposes strict structural limits. Individual bets would be capped at $100, a dramatic reduction from the current environment where high-stakes bettors routinely place five- and six-figure wagers through licensed Ohio sportsbooks. Bettors would also face a hard limit of eight wagers per day, regardless of bet size or sport [1].

These limits would fundamentally change the economics of legal sports betting in Ohio. The state’s four commercial casinos, including JACK Cleveland Casino and Hollywood Casino Columbus, would become the only legal venues for sports wagering, but with a product so restricted that it bears little resemblance to the current market. The combination of a $100 bet cap and an eight-bet daily limit would cap a single bettor’s maximum daily exposure at $800.

The bill also specifically prohibits player proposition bets, which allow bettors to wager on individual athlete performance metrics such as passing yards, points scored, or strikeouts. Player props have become one of the fastest-growing bet categories in the U.S. market, and their prohibition would remove a major revenue driver for operators and a popular product for recreational bettors. College sports betting would also be banned entirely under HB 971, aligning with restrictions that several other states have adopted or debated in recent years.

Rep. Jonathan Newman and the ‘Save Ohio Sports’ Argument

The Legislative Case for Reversal

Representative Jonathan Newman, the bill’s primary sponsor, frames HB 971 not as an attack on personal freedom but as a protective measure for Ohio’s professional and collegiate sports ecosystem. Newman argues that the current online betting environment creates structural harm to the sports sector itself, citing concerns about integrity, athlete welfare, and the normalization of gambling among younger Ohioans. The bill’s informal name, the Save Ohio Sports Act, signals that its proponents see unrestricted online wagering as an existential threat to the sports industry rather than a complement to it [1].

The advertising restrictions in HB 971 reflect a broader national conversation about the volume and targeting of gambling promotions. Since Ohio’s market launched in January 2023, operators have spent tens of millions of dollars on marketing in the state, with promotions appearing during live sports broadcasts, on social media platforms, and through direct digital outreach. Critics of the current system, including Newman, argue this level of promotion normalizes gambling behavior and disproportionately reaches vulnerable populations.

The National Council on Problem Gambling estimates that approximately 1% of the U.S. adult population meets the clinical criteria for severe gambling disorder, with a further 2-3% experiencing moderate gambling problems. In a state with Ohio’s population of roughly 11.8 million adults, that translates to hundreds of thousands of individuals potentially at risk. Newman’s bill uses this public health framing to justify its most restrictive provisions, including the daily bet limit and the credit betting ban.

Opposition and Industry Pushback

The legal sports betting industry in Ohio has not responded to HB 971 with silence. Operators including DraftKings and FanDuel have established significant infrastructure in the state, employing Ohio-based staff and paying substantial licensing fees and tax revenue to the Ohio Casino Control Commission. A full online ban would eliminate that tax stream entirely, a point that fiscal conservatives in the Ohio legislature are likely to weigh carefully as the bill moves through committee.

Ohio currently taxes sports betting revenue at 20%, one of the higher rates among legal U.S. markets. In fiscal year 2024, Ohio’s sports betting operators generated hundreds of millions of dollars in gross gaming revenue, producing tens of millions in state tax receipts that fund education and infrastructure programs. Opponents of HB 971 argue that eliminating online betting would not eliminate gambling demand but would redirect it to offshore and illegal operators, removing consumer protections and state revenue simultaneously.

Ohio’s $3.8 Billion Betting Market: What HB 971 Would Eliminate

Ohio launched legal sports betting on January 1, 2023, becoming one of the largest U.S. markets almost immediately. The state’s combination of passionate sports fanbases, including supporters of the Cleveland Guardians, Cleveland Browns, Cincinnati Bengals, Columbus Crew, and Cleveland Cavaliers, created immediate and sustained demand. By the end of 2023, Ohio had recorded over $3.8 billion in total sports betting handle, placing it among the top ten U.S. markets by volume [1].

The following table shows exactly what HB 971 would prohibit versus what would remain legal under the proposed legislation:

For context, Ohio’s situation is not entirely unique. Massachusetts, which launched legal sports betting in March 2023, faced immediate calls from state legislators to restrict advertising and limit promotional offers after concerns about problem gambling rates. New York, the largest U.S. sports betting market by handle, has debated raising its already high 51% tax rate and imposing advertising restrictions. But no state has moved to reverse online legalization entirely, which is what makes HB 971 genuinely radical in the national context.

The Ohio Casino Control Commission, the regulatory body that oversees the state’s gambling industry, issued 25 online sports betting licenses when the market launched in January 2023. Those licenses represent significant financial investments by operators, who paid licensing fees and built Ohio-specific compliance infrastructure. A forced shutdown would trigger complex legal disputes over license revocation and potential compensation claims, adding a costly litigation dimension to the bill’s fiscal impact.

What HB 971 Means for Ohio Sports Bettors and Casino Players

For the estimated 2.5 million Ohioans who have registered accounts with legal online sportsbooks since January 2023, House Bill 971 represents a direct and immediate disruption to how they engage with sports. The convenience of mobile betting, which accounts for the overwhelming majority of sports betting handle in every state where it is legal, would disappear entirely. Bettors who want to place a legal wager on a Cleveland Browns game would need to travel to one of Ohio’s four commercial casinos or ten racinos, place a maximum $100 bet, and do so no more than eight times in a single day [1].

The practical effect would be a dramatic reduction in legal betting participation. Research from states that have compared mobile and retail-only markets consistently shows that mobile access drives between 80% and 95% of total handle. Eliminating the online channel would not eliminate betting demand; it would push a significant portion of that demand toward unregulated offshore platforms that offer no consumer protections, no responsible gambling tools, and no contribution to Ohio’s tax base. This is the central counterargument that industry groups and some legislators are likely to deploy against HB 971 as it advances through the Ohio House.

For readers who follow the broader online casino and sports betting industry, the Ohio bill is a significant signal. It represents the most aggressive legislative attempt to reverse sports betting liberalization in the post-PASPA era, the period since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal sports betting ban in May 2018. If HB 971 gains serious traction in the Ohio legislature, it could embolden similar efforts in other states where problem gambling concerns have generated political pressure. Operators, investors, and bettors in every legal U.S. market should watch this bill closely.

Ohio casino players who prefer table games and slots at brick-and-mortar venues would see less direct impact from HB 971, since the bill targets sports betting specifically rather than casino gaming broadly. However, the political momentum behind the bill reflects a broader regulatory tightening mood that could eventually extend to other gambling verticals. Readers interested in responsible gambling tools and state-by-state betting regulations will find Ohio’s legislative experiment particularly instructive over the coming months.

Key Takeaways

• Ohio House Bill 971, the Save Ohio Sports Act, proposes a complete ban on online sports betting in a state that generated over $3.8 billion in betting handle in its first full year of legal operation.
• The bill would cap individual bets at $100 and limit bettors to eight wagers per day, even at the brick-and-mortar casinos that would remain the only legal betting venues.
• HB 971 would ban parlay bets, live in-game betting, player proposition bets, college sports betting, and betting on credit, eliminating the most popular and profitable bet types in the modern market.
• Representative Jonathan Newman, the bill’s sponsor, frames HB 971 as a public health and sports integrity measure under the informal name Save Ohio Sports Act.
• Ohio taxes sports betting revenue at 20%, and a full online ban would eliminate tens of millions of dollars in annual state tax receipts currently generated by operators including DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM, and Caesars Sportsbook.
• No U.S. state has reversed a full online sports betting legalization since the Supreme Court struck down PASPA in May 2018, making HB 971 the most radical rollback attempt in the post-legalization era.
• The bill is currently in the Ohio House of Representatives and has not yet passed; its prospects depend on committee review and broader legislative support in Columbus.

Frequently Asked Questions

The Bottom Line

Ohio House Bill 971 is not a routine regulatory adjustment. It is a direct challenge to the legal framework that has governed U.S. sports betting since the Supreme Court’s landmark 2018 ruling, and it targets one of the country’s most active and recently established betting markets. Representative Jonathan Newman’s Save Ohio Sports Act would, if enacted, eliminate online sports betting from a state where millions of residents have already integrated legal wagering into their sports consumption habits, and it would do so by replacing a thriving digital market with a heavily restricted retail-only alternative capped at $100 per bet [1].

The bill faces significant headwinds. The fiscal argument against it is powerful: Ohio’s 20% sports betting tax generates meaningful state revenue, and a ban would redirect demand to offshore platforms rather than eliminate it. The legal argument is equally complex, given the licensing agreements and operator investments made under the existing framework. But the political argument for HB 971 is real, and the problem gambling concerns that Newman cites are not fabricated. The bill reflects genuine public anxiety about the speed and scale of sports betting’s normalization in American life, and that anxiety is not going away regardless of what happens to this specific piece of legislation.

For anyone with a stake in the U.S. sports betting industry, whether as a bettor, an operator, an investor, or a regulator, Ohio is now the most important state to watch. The outcome of HB 971 will either confirm that legal sports betting is a permanent fixture of American consumer culture or signal that the political pendulum is swinging back. Either way, the answer is coming from Columbus.

Sources

1. GamblingNews.com – Primary reporting on Ohio House Bill 971, its provisions, and Rep. Jonathan Newman’s stated rationale for the Save Ohio Sports Act.
2. Covers.com – Industry context on Ohio sports betting market performance, operator activity, and U.S. state-by-state regulatory comparisons.