Fanatics Fined $20K by Colorado for Pinging Self-Excluded Gambler. Stakeholders Say Size Doesn’t Matter

By jili tutorial · September 4, 2026

Fanatics Fined $20K by Colorado for Pinging Self-Excluded Gambler – Stakeholders Say Impact Matters More Than the Dollar Amount

When a sportsbook giant with billions in revenue receives a $20,000 fine for reaching out to a self-excluded patron, does the penalty actually change behavior? That’s the central question raised by regulators and advocates following a recent enforcement action against Fanatics Sportsbook by the Colorado Limited Gaming Control Commission.

Stakeholders Focus on Long-Term Change, Not Fine Size

The Colorado commission fined Fanatics $20,000 last month after the operator sent a promotional offer to a self-excluded gambler on two separate occasions. Fanatics reported nearly $13 billion in total revenue in 2025, with roughly $2 billion coming from gambling operations, according to a Forbes article citing CEO Michael Rubin. That context naturally raises doubts about whether a $20,000 fine is meaningful enough.

But Jamie Glick, executive director of the Problem Gambling Coalition of Colorado (PGCC), urged a broader perspective. Rather than fixating on the dollar amount, the true measure of a penalty’s effectiveness lies in its ability to prevent recurrence.

“The most important question is not whether $20,000 is objectively large or small, but whether the consequence is meaningful enough to change behavior and prevent the same thing from happening again,” Glick told Gambling Insider via email.

Self-Exclusion as a Critical Safeguard

Glick emphasized that self-exclusion is a vital consumer protection tool. “When someone decides to self-exclude, the systems should reinforce that decision, not undermine it through promotional messaging,” he wrote.

He added: “For an individual experiencing gambling-related harm, one promotional message can matter. That is why compliance should not simply become a cost of doing business. Consequences should create enough accountability that operators have a meaningful incentive to invest in the technology, procedures, and oversight necessary to prevent these failures.”

While the PGCC is not involved in setting regulatory penalties, Glick believes regulators should tailor fines to the specific circumstances of each case. “From a public health perspective, the measure of an effective consequence should ultimately be whether it protects consumers and reduces the likelihood of the behavior happening again,” he said.

Fine Levied on Case-by-Case Basis

According to the stipulation agreement between the Colorado gaming commission and Fanatics, the customer—identified only as “T.M.”—placed themselves on the self-exclusion list on January 15, 2026. Despite that action, the patron received a promotional text from a member of Fanatics’ VIP team on February 1.

Fanatics quickly identified the error and distributed training materials to its VIP service representatives on February 4. However, the customer received a second promotional message on February 17.

Progressive Discipline Framework

The Colorado Division of Gaming determined the fine under a “framework of progressive discipline,” explained Derek Kuhn of the Colorado Department of Revenue in an email to Gambling Insider.

“The Division evaluates every infraction against statutory guidelines, published rules, and established precedent. This ensures an appropriate penalty that reflects our commitment to enforcing responsible gaming requirements,” Kuhn said.

The fine amount was calculated based on the “specific number of violations”—in this case, two—and also took into account “any proactive steps taken by the operator to rectify the issue.” Under Colorado’s progressive framework, repeated violations can result in penalties of up to $25,000 per infraction.

“Fines are proposed on a case-by-case basis, and consequences for operators escalate based on the nature and frequency of violations, with statutory maximums serving as the upper limit for penalties,” Kuhn noted.

Corrective Measures Required

The agreement also requires Fanatics to audit its self-exclusion program and implement corrective measures. Fanatics agreed to “enhance ongoing training” for its VIP staff and submit those training materials as proof of compliance. The company also recommitted to complying with all regulations moving forward. Kuhn confirmed that Fanatics has already retrained its VIP staff and “implemented product interface enhancements” to prevent similar breaches from recurring.

Fanatics: ‘Mistakes Happen’

In a statement provided to Gambling Insider, Fanatics Vice President of Communications Kevin Hennessy acknowledged the lapse. “Despite the protections we put in place to ensure regulatory compliance, unfortunately mistakes happen.”

The company stressed that it self-reported the infraction to the gaming commission and noted that, while the promotional offers reflected an obvious failure, the customer could not act on the prompt because the exclusion itself remained properly in place.

Fanatics said it views this—and any regulatory violation—as an opportunity to improve. “In this instance, Fanatics Betting & Gaming promptly identified the mistake, self-reported it to the regulators, and took action to remedy. While the patron received an impermissible outreach, which is regrettable, the patron had been properly excluded and was unable to engage with our platform. As we do with any regulatory violation, we have used this as a learning experience.”