Wisconsin Legalizes Online Sports Wagering; Follows Florida’s Lead (with Its Own Twist)
By: Brian Schaller and Max Landaw
In our prior post, we discussed how the Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for certiorari in West Flagler Associates v. Haaland opened a potential pathway for states to structure online sports wagering. Instead of directly legalizing sports wagering via the legislature, Florida legalized sports wagering by renegotiating their tribal gaming compact with the Seminole Tribe. The compact gave the Seminole Tribe a monopoly on sports wagering, requiring that all servers associated with such gaming must be located on tribal lands. Wisconsin has now taken a meaningful step in a similar direction, though through a different mechanism.
Wisconsin has enacted Assembly Bill 601 as 2025 Wisconsin Act 247 (“Act”), creating a narrow but significant change to its gambling laws that opens a path to legal online sports wagering in the state. Below we discuss the Act, how it is similar to and different from Florida, and what this means for those states that have not yet legalized online sports wagering.
A Legislative Shift Framed Around Definition, Not Authorization
Rather than directly legalizing statewide mobile sports betting, Wisconsin took a more nuanced approach. The Act adds a new subsection (h) to Wis. Stat. Ann. § 945.01(1), which lists the exclusions to the definition of “bet.” Specifically, the statute now provides that a wager placed by a person located in Wisconsin using a mobile (or other electronic) device is not a “bet” if the wager is conducted:
using a server located on tribal lands within the state; and
pursuant to an existing tribal gaming compact.
This seems like a critical structural choice. Under prior law, conducting online betting could constitute a criminal offense. By redefining what is and is not a “bet,” Wisconsin has created a pathway for online wagering without broadly amending its gambling framework.
Echoes of the Florida Model
The parallels to Florida are difficult to ignore. Like Florida’s compact with the Seminole Tribe, Wisconsin’s approach is structured around the principle that a wager is deemed to occur where it is received and processed, rather than where it is initiated.
In both states, the key concept is the location of the server. If the server processing the wager sits on tribal land, the wager is deemed to occur on tribal land, even if the bettor is physically located elsewhere in the state.
This framing is consistent with the reasoning upheld by the D.C. Circuit in West Flagler, where the court explained that “The Compact ‘authorizes’ only the Tribe’s activity on its own lands, that is, operating the sports book and receiving wagers.” The court also noted that the compact’s discussion of wagers placed from outside Indian lands did not, in and of itself, violate the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). That reasoning may support an argument that Wisconsin’s approach, which addresses the state-law treatment of certain wagers placed from non-tribal lands, is not inconsistent with IGRA.
Implementation Still Runs Through Tribal Compacts
Wisconsin’s updated statute does not directly authorize or implement online sports wagering. Instead, it sets the legal groundwork for what likely comes next: negotiation and amendment of tribal gaming compacts.
Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers’ signing statement underscores this point. While approving the bill, he emphasized that the legislation is “the beginning of a conversation, not the end of one,” and that the “real work begins” with Wisconsin’s 11 affected tribes determining how mobile sports wagering will be structured. Notably, the Governor expressed concerns about unequal outcomes and expressed support for models, such as joint ventures, that allow all tribes to participate on more equal footing.
This emphasis on multi-tribe participation distinguishes Wisconsin from Florida’s more centralized, single-operator model with the Seminole Tribe having a monopoly on sports wagering in Florida.
What This Means for the Broader Market
Wisconsin’s approach reinforces the practical takeaway from West Flagler. States may be able to expand sports wagering not by rewriting their entire gaming legislation, but by carefully structuring the relationship between state law, tribal compacts, and the location of wagering infrastructure.
At the same time, Wisconsin illustrates that this path is not purely executive. Unlike Florida, where the governor’s compact amendment drove the process, Wisconsin used legislation to modify its statute and create legal clarity around bettor activity.
Wisconsin’s enactment of Act 247 reflects one approach to structuring sports wagering within the existing framework of state law and tribal gaming compacts. Whether other states pursue similar structures will depend on their own statutory regimes, compact frameworks, and political considerations.
Originally published by InfoLawGroup LLP. If you would like to receive regular emails from us, in which we share updates and our take on current legal news, please subscribe to InfoLawGroup’s Insights HERE. This summary does not constitute legal advice.