Connecticut U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal and two House members have asked FanDuel to provide copies of personalized celebrity videos sent to VIP bettors and explain how it screened recipients for gambling harm. Their October 6 letter sets an October 20 response deadline.
The request follows FanDuel’s September 24 reply acknowledging about 30 athlete and entertainer videos over two years. Blumenthal, Rep. Paul Tonko of New York and Rep. Valerie Foushee of North Carolina want recipients’ wagering and loss histories, requests to suspend accounts or reduce notifications, and the steps hosts took to check for financial distress.
The inquiry grew from a Bryce Harper video sent to a bettor whom lawmakers described as having lost $1.5 million. The lawmakers question whether data collected to identify harmful gambling could also be used for customer promotions. Those are allegations and oversight questions, not findings that FanDuel violated a law.
In its September 24 letter, signed by public-policy executive Cory Fox, FanDuel said the videos were customer-appreciation messages rather than inducements to continue gambling. It said hosts are trained to escalate warning signs, significant rewards require additional approval, and customers seeking to reduce or stop gambling should receive assistance rather than incentives to stay.
FanDuel also described automated and manual reviews of account behavior and said it did not plan to end its VIP program. The company’s account of its safeguards remains disputed by the lawmakers, who are seeking underlying records rather than accepting a general description of the program.
SBC Americas reported on the company’s reply October 6 and said a spokesperson declined further comment on that letter. WFSB returned to the inquiry October 13. The latest verified formal request is the October 6 letter; the television report does not establish that a new request was issued Tuesday.
The next documented step is FanDuel’s October 20 response deadline. The inquiry concerns a Connecticut senator’s national consumer-protection work; the reviewed records do not identify an Eastern Connecticut recipient or establish a new restriction on Connecticut bettors.