Congress is asking betting and prediction-market companies how athlete content and AI fit into their VIP programs. For agents, the question underneath it is straightforward: do you know how a client’s content may be used after the client creates it?

A personalized athlete video usually looks simple. The athlete receives a short request, records a greeting, and someone gets a message that feels personal. Cameo built a business around those requests.

Bryce Harper’s experience shows where that process can break down.

In November 2024, a FanDuel VIP host arranged a Cameo video from Harper for a customer named Terry Thompson. According to the lawsuit at the centre of the reporting, Thompson had wagered $18.5 million with FanDuel and lost about $1.5 million.

Harper says the Cameo request was presented as a personal holiday video for Terry and that he read the script in good faith. According to Harper, FanDuel later added its logo and used the video as a VIP promotion. When the story became public in July 2026, Harper said: “I did not know FanDuel would do this, I did not consent to it, and FanDuel had no right to do it.” He also said he would not have made the video if he had known FanDuel’s intent or anything about the recipient’s situation.

An athlete can approve the content without approving the context in which it is used.

That is the thread running through the Harper example, the congressional inquiry and the questions agents should now be asking.

What Congress wants to know

On October 22, Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Reps. Paul Tonko and Valerie Foushee sent letters to BetMGM, Caesars, DraftKings, Fanatics, Kalshi and Polymarket. FanDuel was not a recipient in this round. The lawmakers had already questioned FanDuel separately and said its September answers were misleading and incomplete.

The new letters focus on how VIP and rewards programs work. The lawmakers want enrollment and revenue figures, information about customers’ losses before and after joining, and details about customers who tried to reduce their gambling or close their accounts but were offered perks instead. They also ask what checks companies complete before offering VIP status, whether athlete or celebrity videos are among the perks, whether VIP managers are coached to build relationships that encourage more gambling, and whether AI is used to target customers with offers.

The companies have been asked to respond by November 5.

These are questions, not findings. The letters do not establish that any of the six companies used athlete content or AI in the ways being examined. They do show why the context around athlete content has become a regulatory issue, not just a contract detail.

Two different accounts of the FanDuel videos

FanDuel told lawmakers on September 24 that it had sent approximately 30 personalized videos from athletes and entertainers over two years as tokens of appreciation for customers’ loyalty.

Lawmakers are examining whether VIP perks can encourage continued gambling. FanDuel has characterized the videos as loyalty gestures. Those are different accounts of the purpose behind the same practice, and the inquiry has not resolved them.

Harper’s concern was narrower. He was not a FanDuel endorser, and he says he had no affiliation with the company. His video did not begin inside a negotiated endorsement agreement. It began with a Cameo request that, according to him, did not disclose the commercial use that followed.

That distinction is important for agents. A conventional partnership normally gives the athlete and agent a chance to review the deliverables, channels, approvals and usage rights before anything is created. A marketplace request can sit outside that process. Reviewing the main endorsement agreement would not necessarily tell an athlete how content obtained somewhere else might be branded, distributed or connected to a customer program.

Harper agreed to record a message for Terry. What he says he didn’t approve was FanDuel adding its branding, using the video for a commercial purpose or distributing it within a VIP program. The creative was only one part of the use.

Where AI fits

Congress has not established that AI selected the recipients of personalized athlete videos. The October 22 letters ask whether AI is used to target bettors with perks. Massachusetts regulators are separately asking whether betting behaviour can make a customer more likely to receive a promotion. Neither inquiry proves that AI chose who received Harper’s video.

AI still matters here because targeting is another form of context. If a system helps decide who receives a perk, when they receive it, or which perk they are offered, athlete content can become part of that decision without the athlete recording anything differently. The video stays the same. The reason it reaches a particular customer may be based on that customer’s spending, deposits, losses, predicted value or betting behaviour.

That possibility is why an agent cannot stop at approving the script or the finished creative. The agent also needs to understand how the content will be distributed and what information may influence who receives it.

The questions agents should ask now

I don’t think this means athletes should automatically refuse betting or prediction-market partnerships. It does mean the approval process has to cover use and context, not just content.

Four questions cover most of the risk:

• Where can the content be used? Is it limited to named public campaigns, or can it also appear in private account messages, loyalty programs, VIP rewards and one-to-one customer marketing?
• Can the context change after approval? Can the company add branding, offer language or promotional material? Does the athlete approve only the creative, or also the purpose, channel and category of recipient?
• How are recipients selected? Can content be delivered because of a customer’s spending, deposits, losses, betting frequency, predicted value or an AI-generated profile? Are customers showing signs of gambling harm excluded?
• What happens outside the main agreement? Can the company, an agency or a VIP host obtain athlete content through Cameo or another marketplace? If a use moves beyond what was approved, will the company disclose it and stop the use when asked?

The point is not to turn every endorsement review into a contract exercise. It is to answer these questions before the content is created, while the athlete still has a practical choice about the context attached to it.

Why hockey should pay attention

On October 22, 2025, the NHL announced multi-year partnerships naming Kalshi and Polymarket its official prediction-market partners. Both companies received the October 22 congressional letters.

That does not mean either company improperly used athlete content, and a league partnership does not create an individual endorsement for any NHL player. League marks, team agreements, player likeness rights and content obtained through a separate marketplace remain separate issues.

Still, the NHL’s relationship with both companies makes the questions relevant to hockey agents now, rather than after a player is asked to participate in a campaign or a piece of player content appears somewhere unexpected.

What happens next

Massachusetts has asked its seven licensed mobile sportsbooks for written information about their AI and machine-learning use by November 3. Participation is voluntary and the responses are expected to remain confidential, so the date may not produce much public information.

The six companies contacted by Congress have been asked to respond by November 5. The letters alone do not compel a response. The useful detail to watch for is whether any company explains how athlete or celebrity videos fit into its VIP program, and whether it can clearly separate loyalty gestures from incentives designed to keep a customer gambling.

Harper’s video is a reminder that creating the content is only the first decision. Who can brand it, who receives it and how it’s used are decisions too.

Those conversations need to happen before the athlete presses record.