The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XXXIII
REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS

Chapter 550
PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 550.615

550.615 Intertrack wagering.—

(1) Any thoroughbred permitholder licensed under this chapter which has conducted a full schedule of live racing may, at any time, receive broadcasts of horseraces and accept wagers on horseraces conducted by horserace permitholders licensed under this chapter at its facility.

(2) Except as provided in subsection (1), a pari-mutuel permitholder that has met the applicable requirement for that permitholder to conduct live racing or games under s. 550.01215(1)(b), if any, for fiscal year 2020-2021 is qualified to, at any time, receive broadcasts of any class of pari-mutuel race or game and accept wagers on such races or games conducted by any class of permitholders licensed under this chapter.

(3) If a permitholder elects to broadcast its signal to any permitholder in this state, any permitholder that is eligible to conduct intertrack wagering under the provisions of ss. 550.615-550.6345 is entitled to receive the broadcast and conduct intertrack wagering under this section; provided, however, that the host track may require a guest track within 25 miles of another permitholder to receive in any week at least 60 percent of the live races that the host track is making available on the days that the guest track is otherwise operating live races or games. A host track may require a guest track not operating live races or games and within 25 miles of another permitholder to accept within any week at least 60 percent of the live races that the host track is making available. A person may not restrain or attempt to restrain any permitholder that is otherwise authorized to conduct intertrack wagering from receiving the signal of any other permitholder or sending its signal to any permitholder.

(4) In no event shall any intertrack wager be accepted on the same class of live races or games of any permitholder without the written consent of such operating permitholders conducting the same class of live races or games if the guest track is within the market area of such operating permitholder.

(5) No permitholder within the market area of the host track shall take an intertrack wager on the host track without the consent of the host track.

(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (3), in any area of the state where there are three or more horserace permitholders within 25 miles of each other, intertrack wagering between permitholders in said area of the state shall only be authorized under the following conditions: Any permitholder, other than a thoroughbred permitholder, may accept intertrack wagers on races or games conducted live by a permitholder of the same class or any harness permitholder located within such area and any harness permitholder may accept wagers on games conducted live by any jai alai permitholder located within its market area and from a jai alai permitholder located within the area specified in this subsection when no jai alai permitholder located within its market area is conducting live jai alai performances; any greyhound or jai alai permitholder may receive broadcasts of and accept wagers on any permitholder of the other class provided that a permitholder, other than the host track, of such other class is not operating a contemporaneous live performance within the market area.

(7) In any county of the state where there are only two permits, one for dogracing and one for jai alai, no intertrack wager may be taken during the period of time when a permitholder is not licensed to conduct live races or games without the written consent of the other permitholder that is conducting live races or games. However, if neither permitholder is conducting live races or games, either permitholder may accept intertrack wagers on horseraces or on the same class of races or games, or on both horseraces and the same class of races or games as is authorized by its permit.

(8) In any three contiguous counties of the state where there are only three permitholders, all of which are greyhound permitholders, if any permitholder leases the facility of another permitholder for all or any portion of the conduct of its live race meet pursuant to s. 550.475, such lessee may conduct intertrack wagering at its pre-lease permitted facility throughout the entire year.

(9) In any two contiguous counties of the state in which there are located only four active permits, one for thoroughbred horse racing, two for greyhound dogracing, and one for jai alai games, no intertrack wager may be accepted on the same class of live races or games of any permitholder without the written consent of such operating permitholders conducting the same class of live races or games if the guest track is within the market area of such operating permitholder.

(10) All costs of receiving the transmission of the broadcasts shall be borne by the guest track; and all costs of sending the broadcasts shall be borne by the host track.

(11) Any greyhound permitholder licensed under this chapter to conduct pari-mutuel wagering is qualified to, at any time, receive broadcasts of any class of pari-mutuel race or game and accept wagers on such races or games conducted by any class of permitholders licensed under this chapter.

History.—s. 47, ch. 92-348; s. 2, ch. 93-123; s. 17, ch. 95-390; s. 15, ch. 96-364; ss. 8, 9, ch. 98-190; ss. 13, 44, ch. 2000-354; s. 13, ch. 2002-2; s. 27, ch. 2021-271.

F.S. 550.615 on Google Scholar

F.S. 550.615 on Casetext

Amendments to 550.615

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 550.615

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 550.615.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

DEBARY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, LLC, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARIMUTUEL WAGERING, f k a LLC,, 112 So. 3d 157 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . See, e.g., §§ 550.615(7), (9); 550.6805(9)(d), (f). . . .

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, v. GULFSTREAM PARK RACING ASSOCIATION, INC. v., 967 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 2007)

. . . The issue before this Court is whether section 550.615(6), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), is unconstitutional . . . Section 550.615(6) was enacted in 96-364, Laws of Florida. . . . Section 550.615(6) applies only and can apply only to the Dade-Bro-ward market area and so constitutes . . . However, the prohibition in section 550.615(6) against inter-track wagering in areas where there are . . . These hypotheticals do not show that section 550.615(6) has any real potential to apply to others. . . . I agree with the majority analysis that section 550.615(6) of the Florida Statutes is an unconstitutional . . . 550.71 is an unambiguous statement of legislative intent, and, therefore, the invalidation of section 550.615 . . .

GULFSTREAM PARK RACING ASSOCIATION, INC. a v. TAMPA BAY DOWNS, INC. a, 479 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2007)

. . . exclusivity provisions were valid and enforceable in Florida because they are not prohibited by Sections 550.615 . . . Subsequently, Tampa Bay Downs filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Sections 550.615(3 . . .

GULFSTREAM PARK RACING ASSOCIATION, INC. v. TAMPA BAY DOWNS, INC., 948 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2006)

. . . TBD filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that sections 550.615(3) and 550.6305(9)(g)(l) of . . . TBD asserts that the DPW’s declaratory statement also supports the premise that section 550.615(3) of . . . Gulfstream asserts that reference to the “signal” of a “permitholder” in section 550.615(3) restricts . . . The title of section 550.615 is “intertrack wagering.” See § 550.615, Fla. Stat. (2005). . . . See § 550.615(3), Fla. Stat. (2005). . . . In this ease in particular, the majority correctly interprets the plain language of sections 550.615( . . .

STATE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARIMUTUEL WAGERING, v. GULFSTREAM PARK RACING ASSOCIATION, INC. LLLP, v., 912 So. 2d 616 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . This is an appeal from a final judgment declaring section 550.615(6), Florida Statutes, unconstitutional . . . The conditions that trigger the prohibition in section 550.615(6) against intertrack wagering apply only . . . For these reasons, we hold that section 550.615(6), Florida Statutes is a special law enacted in the . . . Cross concluded that the conditions in section 550.615(6) would not come into existence in any other . . . These hypotheticals do not show that section 550.615(6) has any real potential to apply to others. . . .

GULFSTREAM PARK RACING ASSOCIATION, INC. a v. TAMPA BAY DOWNS, INC. a, 399 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . exclusivity provisions were valid and enforceable in Florida because they are not prohibited by Sections 550.615 . . . Tampa Bay Downs filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Sections 550.615(3) and 550.5305 . . .

GULFSTREAM PARK RACING ASSOCIATION, INC. a v. TAMPA BAY DOWNS, INC. a, 294 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2003)

. . . Stat. § 550.615(3), Fla. . . . While Section 550.615(3) states in relevant part: If a permitholder elects to broadcast its signal to . . . Stat. § 550.615(3) (emphasis added). . . . This Court concludes that Sections 550.6305(9)(g)l and 550.615(3) should not be construed so that an . . . Thus, section 550.6305(9)(g)l and the last sentence of Section 550.615(3) do not explicitly require a . . .

OCALA BREEDERS SALES COMPANY, INC. v. FLORIDA GAMING CENTERS, INC., 793 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2001)

. . . We have on appeal a decision of the First District Court of Appeal declaring invalid section 550.615( . . . After the trial court declared section 550.615(9) unconstitutional as a special law, Breeders and the . . . Section 550.615(9)(a) provides: Upon application to the division on or before January 31 of each year . . . As that court found, under section 550.615(9)(b), also known as the “tiebreaker provision,” Breeders . . . Section 550.615(9) was repealed during the 2000 legislative session. . . .

OCALA BREEDERS SALES COMPANY, INC. a v. FLORIDA GAMING CENTERS, INC. d b a, 731 So. 2d 21 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . At issue in this appeal is the constitutionality of section 550.615(9) Florida Statutes, which enables . . . Section 550.615(9), Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), extends intertrack wagering beyond pari-mutuel wagering . . . Ocala Jai Alai challenged the constitutionality of section 550.615(9) in a declaratory judgment suit . . . Section 550.615(9) expands the exception by making it applicable to thoroughbred horse breeders. . . . The complaint challenged section 550.615(8), Florida Statutes (1995). . . .