Wisconsin Lawmakers Push Off Vote on Online Sports Betting Bill

Wisconsin GOP leaders pushed back a vote on Assembly Bill AB 601, which proposes to bring forward legal online sports betting by allowing the state’s 11 tribes to offer sports betting statewide, while hosting the wagering activities on servers based in tribal land under amended gaming compacts. 

One of the bill’s sponsors, State Assembly Majority Leader Rep. Tyler August (R), said that he expected at least 50 GOP votes when the bill comes to the floor. However, amid recent conservative backlash and reluctance to rely on a minority vote, he is in no rush to pass the bill until at least January. “I had a conversation with a couple of members over the weekend that brought up some points I hadn’t considered yet, so we’re going to work on those,” August said.  

Earlier this week, August also warned that the best prediction markets could fill the void if the current legal Wisconsin sports betting market didn't change. "If we leave a gray area in state law, national prediction platforms will fill it without our compact framework, Wisconsin oversight, or Wisconsin consumer safeguards," he wrote. "AB 601 does the opposite: it channels activity into a regulated, Wisconsin-based, compacted environment with clear jurisdiction and accountability." 

Despite GOP concerns, Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer (D) said at a pre-session press meeting that she intends to support the bill. "We know that our tribes in Wisconsin have the right to control gaming in our state, and right now that's not happening with online sports betting."

Debate over AB 601's legality

Opponents of the bill include the Sports Betting Alliance, with members such as FanDuel and DraftKings, as well as the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. The latter argues that the legislation is unlawful and violates the Federal Indian Gaming Act, as it will “unleash tribal betting monopolies off reservation” and set off a “race-based monopoly to Tribal gaming operations while closing the door on everyone else.”

Bill supporters argue that the change would keep betting within an established regulatory framework, noting that tribal wagering already operates under strict state and federal oversight. They also contend that the model protects consumer safeguards and preserves tribal sovereignty. State revenue sharing tied to compact amendments would also remain intact.

A legal analysis commissioned by the Forest County Potawatomi Community evaluated AB 601 and its companion bill. The opinion by former Chief Deputy Solicitor General Ryan Walsh concluded the bill complies with federal law and the Wisconsin Constitution. 

It states that the bill changes the state's definition of a bet by excluding remote wagers accepted on tribal servers. Those wagers would fall outside the state's general betting ban when handled under pre-1993 compacts.

The memo cites updated federal regulations confirming that compacts may cover mobile wagering when gaming remains anchored on tribal lands. It notes the bill does not authorize gambling directly, because compacts perform that function. Instead, it clarifies where a wager legally occurs. 

Prediction markets disrupting betting

Lawmakers have raised concerns about national prediction markets, such as Kalshi and Polymarket. These companies offer event contracts, operate under federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission rules, and avoid Wisconsin tax obligations. 

Figures presented to lawmakers showed Kalshi handling more than $230 million in Week 11 NFL activity. The same report cited more than $1.3 billion in total weekly activity in early November. Tribal leaders say these numbers suggest prediction markets could bypass the compact system. 

In August, the Ho-Chunk Nation filed a lawsuit against Kalshi during the legislature's review of AB 601. The tribe says that Kalshi runs an illegal gambling business that reaches users all over Wisconsin. The lawsuit highlights Kalshi ads that tell people to bet on sports and political events.

The tribe wants a court order that stops Kalshi from working on or near tribal land. It also asks for monetary compensation. The outcomes may influence how states manage event-based wagering in the future.