Florida DOR Proposal Sparks Debate Over New Certification for Coin-Operated Machines

A Proposed Form Change Has Generated Significant Pushback

The Florida Department of Revenue has proposed amendments to Rule 12A-1.097, Florida Administrative Code, which incorporates forms used to register coin-operated amusement machines throughout the state. Specifically, the proposal would update Forms DR-18, DR-18N, DR-18R, and DR-18RS. According to the Department, the revisions are intended to clarify existing law and incorporate provisions already found in Chapters 849 and 546, Florida Statutes.

As a result, a rulemaking focused on registration forms has evolved into a debate about liability, administrative authority, and the regulation of skill-based gaming devices in Florida.

What Would the Proposed Amendments Require?

The proposed amendments would revise the forms used to register coin-operated machines with the Department of Revenue.

Among other changes, applicants would be required to acknowledge that registration does not authorize the operation or possession of machines that are unlawful under Chapter 849, Florida Statutes. Applicants would also certify that the machines being registered are games of skill and are not machines using mechanical slot reels, video depictions of slot reels, or representations of casino-style games, including bingo and other gambling activities.

During the July 7, 2026 rule hearing, Department representatives repeatedly stated that the proposal is intended to clarify existing statutory requirements rather than create new substantive obligations.

Why Are Industry Groups Objecting?

Industry representatives contend that the proposal goes well beyond a simple clarification.

During the rule hearing, representatives of the Amusement Machine Association of Florida questioned why the Department is making the change now. According to participants, the forms have existed in substantially similar form for nearly a decade, and no recent statutory amendment appears to have prompted the revision. Written comments submitted after the hearing reiterated those concerns and questioned the authority behind the proposed certification language.

Opponents argue that businesses already have a legal obligation to comply with Florida gaming laws. Therefore, they question whether an additional certification provides meaningful regulatory value.

More importantly, they argue that the certification could have significant consequences if disputes arise regarding whether a machine qualifies as a lawful game of skill.

The Liability Issue Driving Most of the Debate

The most significant concern centers on the proposed attestation language.

Written comments submitted to the Department note that the proposed forms include language certifying the truthfulness of the applicant’s statements under penalties of perjury. Opponents argue that because operators may be required to certify compliance with complex gaming laws, disputes regarding machine classifications could potentially create additional legal exposure.

Industry representatives emphasized during the hearing that questions surrounding skill-based gaming devices remain heavily contested. They noted that several enforcement actions involving allegedly unlawful machines have reportedly been dismissed and argued that businesses should not be forced to make broad legal certifications in an area where disagreements continue to exist.

Questions About Administrative Authority

The proposal has also generated questions regarding rulemaking authority.

Opponents argue that amusement machines are already defined by statute. Therefore, they contend that any significant changes to how those machines are regulated should come from the Legislature rather than through modifications to administrative forms.

Written comments submitted to the Department specifically cite recent legislative discussions involving gaming regulation and criminal penalties. According to those comments, industry groups believe that broader policy decisions regarding gaming enforcement should remain within the legislative process.

The Department, on the other hand, has consistently characterized the proposal as a clarification of existing statutory provisions. 

Practical Concerns for Businesses

Industry representatives pointed out that the registration program covers a wide variety of coin-operated devices. Those devices may include pool tables, dart boards, jukeboxes, arcade games, and other entertainment equipment. Stakeholders questioned whether all of these devices fit comfortably within the proposed certification framework.

Representatives of the Florida Veterans of Foreign Wars also expressed concern regarding references to bingo-related devices. They sought clarification regarding whether certain machines traditionally registered with the Department would continue to qualify under the proposed language. Department representatives responded that the language was drawn directly from existing statutory provisions but acknowledged the concerns raised during the hearing.

Potential Regulatory Cost Implications

Another concern involves regulatory costs.

Written comments submitted to the Department argue that the proposal could increase compliance expenses, legal costs, and enforcement-related burdens for affected businesses. Opponents also questioned whether the Department should prepare a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs to evaluate the potential economic impact of the proposed changes.

Why Businesses Should Monitor This Proposal

The Department has received public comments regarding the proposal and will ultimately decide whether to adopt the amendments, revise them, or pursue a different approach.

For operators, distributors, veterans organizations, restaurants, bars, and other businesses that maintain coin-operated machines, this rulemaking is worth watching. The outcome could influence registration procedures, compliance responsibilities, and how businesses evaluate risk when navigating Florida’s gaming laws.