Online Sports Betting in Florida in Jeopardy: Lawsuit Claims Voter Approval was Required

A lawsuit filed this week seeks to end mobile sports betting in Florida on the grounds that voter approval is required for any type of gambling expansion.

Gaming attorney Daniel Wallach notes that the lawsuit asserts that the statute purporting to authorize sports betting off tribal lands without voter approval violates Florida Amendment 3.  And the suit likely has merit. 

The 2022 ballot measure, which passed, was designed to expand casino gaming in Florida by allowing businesses with active cardroom licenses to offer casino gaming as long as they (a) are located 130 miles in a straight line away from any of the seven Seminole tribal casinos and (b) expend $250 million in capital investments (new development and construction costs on the gaming complex) within three years after submitting a notice of commencement of casino gaming.

Wallach cited some of the excerpts from the suit, which was filed in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County, Florida.

“Today, online sports betting occurs throughout Florida. But no citizens’ initiative has ever been held to provide authorization. And the people of Florida have never been allowed to exercise their constitutional right to decide whether sports betting should be authorized.”

BREAKING: A lawsuit seeking to overturn Florida’s online sports betting law on constitutional grounds has been filed in Tallahassee. Lawsuit asserts that the statute purporting to authorize sports betting off tribal lands w/o voter approval violates Florida Amendment 3. pic.twitter.com/8UVjrodfa4

— Daniel Wallach (@WALLACHLEGAL) April 24, 2025

"Instead, in April 2021, the State entered into a Compact granting the Seminole Tribe the right to provide sports betting 'on an exclusive basis throughout the State . . . without State- authorized competition' from others offering sports betting.”

“Each member of Protect the Constitution LLC offers products in the State of Florida and has suffered harm, including reduced revenue, as a result of the legislation purporting to authorize 'casino gambling' throughout the State."

“That implementing legislation violated Article X, Section 30 by authorizing sports betting throughout Florida without a citizens’ initiative.”

The next month, the Governor and the Legislature implemented the Compact—and the monopoly for sports betting—by authorizing sports betting throughout the State of Florida."

“Plaintiff Protect the Constitution LLC is a Delaware limited liability company, which represents the interests of its members to advance lawful 'casino gambling' through petitioning activity, including by challenging unconstitutional 'casino gambling.’”

“With sports betting and other forms of ‘casino gambling’ at issue, Florida voters went to the polls and overwhelmingly approved Amendment 3 with over 71%.”

“Two-and-a-half years later, and notwithstanding Article X, Section 30, the Governor and Legislature purported to authorize sports betting throughout Florida without a citizens’ initiative.”

“When Floridians overwhelmingly voted in favor of adding Article X, Section 30 to the Constitution, they understood that it would give them the power to authorize sports betting.”

“For decades, Floridians have relied on their votes through the constitutional amendment process to control and regulate the expansion of gaming on this state.” Detailing prior statewide votes in 1978, 1986 and 1994 to overwhelmingly reject casino gambling."

“Indeed, the chairman of the voter committee that drafted and proposed the amendment repeatedly told voters it would give the people, and the people alone, the authority over sports betting."