A group of Ohio Republican lawmakers has introduced legislation that would ban online sports betting and impose strict limits on how, where, and how much residents can wager, targeting a market that has rapidly shifted toward mobile platforms since legalization.
The proposal, titled the Save Ohio Sports Act, was announced on April 8 at the Statehouse by Republican Representatives Riordan McClain, Gary Click, Johnathan Newman, and Kevin Ritter, alongside addiction specialists and public health advocates. The measure now moves to the Ohio House for consideration.
If enacted, the bill would require all legal sports betting to take place in person at the state’s four constitutionally authorized casinos, effectively ending app-based wagering. Sports betting has been legal in Ohio since December 2021 and launched in January 2023 across both retail and online channels.
Since then, online platforms have come to dominate activity, accounting for more than 98 percent of bets, with total handle exceeding $10 billion in 2025.
Supporters argue that the scale and accessibility of digital betting have created risks that outweigh the tax benefits. McClain said most participants lose money over time, noting that only a small share of bettors see long-term gains, while the vast majority continue to deposit funds without meaningful returns.
The legislation proposes limits on betting behavior, including a $100 cap per wager and a maximum of eight bets per day, all restricted to casino locations. It also bans the use of credit cards, in line with what proponents describe as a “no debt to bet” approach.
Several betting formats would be eliminated, including in-game wagers, parlay bets, and prop bets linked to individual player performance. Betting on collegiate sports would also be prohibited. In addition, sportsbooks would be barred from offering promotional incentives such as free bets, and advertising would face tighter restrictions, including bans during live broadcasts and inside sports venues.
Click questioned whether the financial returns justify the impact. “Is it really worth the taxes that we gain to risk people’s lives, their mental health, their personal well-being, their families, their homes? I don’t think it is,” he stated.
Advocacy groups backing the bill include the Center for Christian Virtue, the Ohio Suicide Prevention Foundation, and addiction specialists from the Lindner Center of Hope. They argue that aggressive marketing and constant access contribute to harmful gambling behavior.
Center for Christian Virtue President Aaron Baer drew parallels with substance addiction, warning that promotional offers can act as entry points that encourage repeated engagement.
Clinical experts also pointed to the severity of gambling-related harm. Dr. Chris Tuell, Clinical Director of Addiction Services at Lindner Center of Hope, said: “This is Narcan. We don’t have a spray for problem gambling. We don’t have a pill for problem gambling.”
Supporters also emphasized the risks of isolated gambling tied to mobile devices. Tony Coder of the Ohio Suicide Prevention Foundation said restricting betting to physical venues could reduce harm by limiting late-night, solitary betting behavior that can intensify distress.
Lawmakers further raised concerns about the integrity of sports. Newman described the current system as lacking sufficient safeguards, arguing that clearer limits are needed to address emerging risks. Click added that combining mobile access with gambling increases the potential for compulsive behavior.
While the sponsors acknowledge that sports betting will remain legal, they say the goal is to impose stronger consumer protections and reduce excessive participation. The proposal follows earlier attempts to tighten regulations, including a failed push last year to restrict certain prop bets.
