Barstool Sportsbook hilariously defended its controversial “Can’t Lose Parlay” promotion during a court hearing in Massachusetts on Wednesday.
The company was facing a court hearing over its “Can’t Lose Parlay,” a promotion given out and promoted on the popular “Pardon My Take” podcast that, obviously, can lose.
The parlay, promoted by “Pardon My Take” host Dan Katz – also known as “Big Cat” – was accused of misleading.
Jonathan Albano, the lawyer for Barstool’s parent company Penn National, insisted that they did not break any state laws, per PlayMA.com.
“In context through the eyes of a reasonable consumer, we submit that [when they] saw a parlay that requires a customer to win not one, not two, not three, but four bets, no reasonable person would believe they were engaging in a risk-free activity.”
He argued that the slogan “Can’t Lose Parlay” falls under the same legal standard that applies to Cap’n Crunch, featuring the signature product “Crunch Berries,” which don’t contain real berries.
Barstool also argued that Buffalo wings aren’t made of real buffalo, and statements like “World’s Best Pizza” are unsubstantiated.
Albano noted that 90 percent of users lost their first “Can’t Lose Parlay” bet.
Barstool halted the promotion in mid-March after questions about its legality emerged.
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission is expected to have a written decision on the hearing at a later date.
Many were discussing whether this parlay slogan was implying that they were risk-free bets.
Risk-free bets – which are not uncommon in the sports betting industry – were not offered in the promotion.
The sportsbook had been promoting the “Can’t Lose Parlay” for about four years, including during its launch in Massachusetts in March, according to The Action Network.
The hearing comes on the heels of a long, drawn-out process for Barstool Sportsbook to obtain a gaming license in the company’s home state.
Get the lowdown on the Best USA Sports Betting Sites and Apps
Barstool Sportsbook, owned by Penn Entertainment, had several sessions with the Massachusetts gaming commission to consider whether the ad campaign violated the state’s sports betting and marketing policies.