The Indiana Gaming Commission and Barstool Sports reached a settlement on a $10,000 fine following the self-reporting of a violation involving a member of Barstool’s social media team.
The incident in no way involves any sports wagering operations of Barstool Sportsbook, which is active in Indiana and has generated more than $32 million in handle since going live in May.
Barstool Sports is a sports wagering registrant with the Indiana Gaming Commission, and the IGC notes in the settlement that Barstool Sports “provides marketing services to PSI’s (Penn Sports Interactive) Barstool Sportsbook in Indiana by producing digital content like podcasts, blogs, videos, social media, etc.”
The settlement agreement was approved by the IGC on Sept. 29.
So what exactly happened?
In the four-page settlement agreement, the IGC details that the vice president and chief compliance officer of Penn National Gaming self-reported a “junior member” of Barstool Sports’ social media team who posted a “questionable” 12-second video discussing gambling losses on a TikTok account owned and controlled by Barstool.
Barstool’s social media manager removed the video as soon they became aware of its existence, though it had been live on the account for 12 hours. The video was also reposted on Twitter to an account no one among Barstool, PSI, or Penn controlled or operated and remains on that social media platform.
The IGC requested more information from Penn in late April, and the vice president of compliance for Penn Interactive Ventures — Penn Sports Interactive’s parent company — responded less than one week later. Penn Interactive Ventures informed the IGC the employee who posted the video to Barstool’s TikTok account had been suspended without pay for a month and “the entire company received a refresher on responsible gaming.”
PIV’s compliance officer also confirmed the TikTok posted to a Barstool social media channel that was not controlled by any sports-wagering related entity associated with either Penn or Barstool Sportsbook.
The settlement between the parties is “in consideration for the Commission foregoing disciplinary action” based on the “breach of IC 4-38 and/or 68 IAC.” It does allow the commission the ability to pursue further disciplinary action if it “discovers facts that give rise to additional or separate violations.”