FanDuel has pushed back against a record-tying CA$350,000 penalty imposed by Ontario’s gambling regulator, disputing the findings behind the sanction and arguing that the decision misrepresents both the scale of the issue and the operator’s controls.
The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued the fine over FanDuel’s handling of table tennis betting markets, triggering the highest financial penalty available under its current enforcement powers.
Regulator issues maximum fine over table tennis markets
Ontario’s Alcohol and Gaming Commission has fined FanDuel CA$350,000 for alleged breaches tied to its handling of table tennis wagers, dulling out the highest financial penalty the regulator can impose. The sanction relates to betting activity the regulator says did not meet Ontario’s standards for integrity and player protection.
The case centers on table tennis markets offered on FanDuel’s Ontario platform, where the regulator concluded that safeguards were not sufficient. The fine places FanDuel among a small group of operators to receive the maximum penalty since Ontario’s regulated market launched.
FanDuel disputes regulator’s conclusions
FanDuel has publicly rejected the regulator’s interpretation of the events and said it is considering its options. The company said it disagrees with both the findings and the size of the penalty, maintaining that its controls were in place and that the issue was not indicative of wider systemic failures.
The operator has positioned the matter as limited in scope and stressed that it takes regulatory compliance seriously. FanDuel also said it worked cooperatively with the regulator throughout the process. The response signals a rare and firm pushback from a major operator in Ontario, where most enforcement actions to date have been resolved quietly through settlements or compliance plans.
Record fine sends signal to the market
The size of the penalty is significant. CA$350,000 is the highest fine available to the AGCO under its current powers. Issuing it in this case sends a clear signal to the market about its stance on enforcement.
Ontario has built its regulated iGaming framework around strict operator accountability. Since launch, the regulator has repeatedly stressed that compliance is not optional and that penalties will be used where necessary to correct behavior. The FanDuel decision reinforces that stance and raises the stakes for other operators offering niche or lower-profile sports.
FanDuel has said it remains fully committed to Ontario’s regulatory framework and continues to invest in monitoring, integrity controls, and responsible gambling tools. The company has framed the dispute as a difference in interpretation rather than a rejection of the regulator’s authority.
The operator also pointed to its broader compliance track record and its willingness to engage with regulators to resolve issues. While the company has not confirmed whether it will formally appeal the decision, its public response suggests it is not prepared to simply absorb the penalty without challenge.
Wider implications for niche sports markets
The case has implications beyond FanDuel. It highlights the pressure on operators to carefully assess which sports and competitions they offer, and under what conditions. Niche sports can drive incremental handle and engagement, but they also carry elevated regulatory risk.
Ontario’s enforcement action will likely prompt operators to re-examine their risk models, monitoring thresholds, and approval processes for smaller competitions. Some may choose to tighten restrictions or remove certain markets entirely to avoid similar exposure.
Ontario continues to assert regulatory authority
Since opening its regulated market, Ontario has moved quickly to establish itself as an assertive and interventionist regulator. The province has already issued penalties for advertising breaches, inducement violations, and now betting integrity concerns.
The FanDuel case adds another layer to that enforcement record. It shows that market leaders are not insulated from action and that high-profile brands will be treated no differently from smaller operators. For the regulator, the message is consistent. Compliance is expected. Failures will be penalized. Public disagreement from operators will not soften that position.
What comes next
It remains to be seen whether FanDuel will formally challenge the penalty or seek to resolve the matter through further engagement. Either route will be closely watched by the industry. For now, the dispute underlines the tension that can arise in tightly regulated markets where operators are pushing to grow product breadth while regulators are focused on risk containment.
Ontario’s market is still young. Cases like this will shape how aggressively operators approach innovation and how hard regulators are prepared to lean when lines are crossed.
