- within Media, Telecoms, IT and Entertainment topic(s)
- in United States
- within Cannabis & Hemp topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Aerospace & Defence, Business & Consumer Services and Insurance industries
On January 8, 2026, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO) announced that it had imposed a $350,000 monetary penalty on FanDuel Canada ULC (FanDuel) for failing to identify and report unusual and suspicious betting and match-fixing activity involving events with known integrity concerns.
Background
Pursuant to the Gaming Control Act1 and its regulations,2 the AGCO regulates the internet gaming market in Ontario, including implementing the Registrar's Standards for Internet Gaming3 (Standards).
All registered internet gaming operators (Operators) in Ontario are required to meet the requirements set out in the Standards. Among other things, the Standards require that Operators implement risk management measures to mitigate the betting integrity risk associated with sport and event betting, including insider betting and event manipulation.4 FanDuel is an Operator in Ontario.5
The Violation
The AGCO determined that between October 23, 2024 and November 30, 2024, FanDuel had accepted 144 bets from three specific Ontario player accounts on the Czech Table Tennis Star Series matches that exhibited multiple indicators associated with match-fixing.
The AGCO identified several red flags that should have prompted action on FanDuel's part, including:
- abrupt shifts in wagering behaviour and betting lines on matches involving two specific athletes;
- a concentration of bets on specific athletes losing their matches;
- an implausible and near-perfect win-rate; and
- synchronized wagering patterns across accounts involved in the unusual or suspicious activity.
In addition, the above activity occurred after prior industry warnings regarding integrity concerns associated with this specific tournament series.
Following an in-depth review, the AGCO concluded that, despite the warning signs, FanDuel failed to meet its obligations to (i) identify the unusual and suspicious activity, (ii) respond to those activities, and (iii) report them.
The AGCO cited the following two specific failures as the basis for the monetary penalty imposed upon FanDuel:
- Failure to Engage Transparently: Standard 1.13 requires Operators to engage with the Registrar (of the AGCO) in a transparent manner.6 This includes the obligation to report any "incident or matter that may affect the integrity or public confidence in gaming."7
- Inadequate Risk Management Measures: Standard 4.32 requires that Operators establish controls to identify unusual or suspicious betting activity and report such activity to an Independent Integrity Monitor (IIM).8 An IIM is an ACGO-registered and conflict-free expert who receives and analyzes suspicious betting alerts and shares them appropriately in accordance with the Standards.9
The AGCO also reiterated the importance of the role of Operators in protecting the integrity of Ontario's sports betting market as the first line of defence against betting-related match-fixing. Notably, the AGCO stated, "[i]n a global sports betting market, the failure of operators in one jurisdiction to report unusual or suspicious activity undermines the ability of regulators, police services, and sports authorities around the world to identify and disrupt organized efforts to fix games or bets."10
Takeaways
The decision to impose a monetary penalty on FanDuel serves as a message that the AGCO can use its enforcement powers in circumstances where it has determined that an Operator has failed to comply with its requirements pursuant to the Standards. This enforcement action appears to set expectations regarding active monitoring and reminds Operators that it is not sufficient to merely possess integrity monitoring tools. Operators must demonstrate that these tools are effective in ensuring meaningful compliance with the Standards.
In practice, this means that Operators should carefully consider risks and assess their approach to compliance. Certain events, markets, or player behaviours may require Operators to apply enhanced due diligence to follow the Standards. The FanDuel decision illustrates that the AGCO will not accept passive reliance on integrity systems when clear indicators of suspicious activity are present.
Footnotes
1 Gaming Control Act, 1992, SO 1992, c 24.
3 Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, Registrar's Standards for Internet Gaming (29 May 2025), online: < https://www.agco.ca/en/lottery-and-gaming/guides/registrars-standards-internet-gaming >.
4 Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, Sport and Event Betting Integrity, online: < https://www.agco.ca/en/responsibilities-and-resources/sport-and-event-betting-integrity >.
5 iGaming Ontario, "Operators" (listing accurate as of 10 November 2025), online: < https://igamingontario.ca/en/operator/operators >.
6 Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, Oversight, online: < https://www.agco.ca/en/responsibilities-and-resources/oversight >.
7 Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, Oversight s. 1.13(1), online: < https://www.agco.ca/en/responsibilities-and-resources/oversight >.
8 Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, Sport and Event Betting Integrity, online: < https://www.agco.ca/en/responsibilities-and-resources/sport-and-event-betting-integrity >.
9 Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, Independent Integrity Monitors, online: < https://www.agco.ca/en/lottery-and-gaming/independent-integrity-monitors >.
10 Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, AGCO imposes $350,000 penalty to FanDuel for failing to appropriately protect betting integrity (8 January 2026), online: < https://www.agco.ca/en/news/agco-imposes-350000-penalty-fanduel-failing-appropriately-protect-betting-integrity >.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
