GME3: Bet-ter Luck Next Month, Pop-Ups and Penalties & Cheques and Imbalances

In this week’s GME3, we’re looking at iGaming Ontario’s monthly report highlighting the growth of Ontario’s regulated market, a hefty fine levied against Apple by France’s antitrust regulator, and controversy surrounding yet another million-dollar voter giveaway by Elon Musk. Read the full stories below!

Gambling

Bet-ter Luck Next Month

Ontario’s online gambling market continued to grow in February, with consumers wagering CAD $7.13 billion – up nearly 27% from the same month last year. As of 2025, iGaming Ontario (iGO) switched to month-by-month reporting, where they previously provided quarterly updates. And while year-over-year figures are strong, February’s total was down 9.1% compared to January.

Casino games continue to dominate the market, accounting for $6.07 billion (85%) of all wagers. That figure represents a 30.5% increase from February 2024. Online sports betting also performed well, with $930 million in wagers—up 12.6% year-over-year. However, peer-to-peer online poker saw a dip, with $130 million in wagers, down 6.5%.

Overall gambling revenue reached $280 million in February, reflecting a 19.2% year-over-year increase, though it fell 5.7% from January. Casino gaming contributed $214 million in revenue (76% of the total), up 30.5% from the previous year. Sports betting generated $62 million, a 47.6% jump, with a hold rate of 6.67%. Online poker revenue dropped by 9.4% to just under $5 million.

These numbers only reflect operators licensed by iGaming Ontario and exclude data from the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation’s online offerings and pari-mutuel horse racing. While monthly fluctuations continue, the year-on-year growth underscores Ontario’s position as a leading regulated online gambling market in North America. 

Media

Pop-Ups and Penalties

France’s antitrust authority has fined Apple €150 million over its App Tracking Transparency (ATT) feature, claiming the way it was implemented violated competition laws. ATT, introduced in April 2021, requires apps on iPhones and iPads to request user consent before tracking them for personalized advertising. While the French Competition Authority (FCA) acknowledged that Apple’s stated goal of protecting user privacy is legitimate, it concluded that the rollout was neither necessary nor proportionate to that goal.

The FCA criticized how ATT disproportionately affected smaller app developers, who rely heavily on third-party data for revenue. It argued that Apple’s implementation favored its own services and created a complex environment for users, who were overwhelmed by consent pop-ups from third-party apps. This, according to the regulator, hindered competition and made it harder for smaller publishers to operate effectively.

The fine covers the period from April 2021 to July 2023. Though €150 million is a relatively small sum for Apple, which earned USD $94.9 billion in revenue in the last quarter of 2024, the ruling signals increasing scrutiny of Big Tech’s privacy measures and their competitive implications.

Apple defended ATT, saying it offers users a clear and consistent prompt about tracking that applies to all developers, including Apple itself. The company emphasized strong support from consumers, privacy advocates, and global regulators, and noted that the French authority has not mandated any changes to the feature.

Entertainment

Cheques and Imbalances

Elon Musk’s $1 million check giveaway at a Wisconsin town hall has ignited legal and ethical concerns just days before the state’s pivotal Supreme Court election. Despite efforts by Attorney General Josh Kaul to block the event, the Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to intervene, allowing Musk to proceed with awarding two attendees – one of whom is a leader of the Wisconsin College Republicans – $1 million each.

Kaul’s office argued that Musk’s actions violated Wisconsin election law, which prohibits offering anything of value to induce voting or influence how someone votes. The lawsuit described Musk’s promise of million-dollar checks, tied to attendance and participation in the April 3 election, as a blatant attempt to skirt these laws. A lower court declined to hear the case before the event, and emergency appeals to both an appellate court and the state Supreme Court were unsuccessful.

Musk’s lawyers defended the giveaway as part of a “spokesperson agreement” and pushed for the recusal of two justices who had previously supported a rival judicial candidate, arguing potential bias. Those motions were also denied.

Beyond the checks, Musk’s political action committee launched a “Block Captain” program, offering $20 for photos of Schimel campaign signs with supporters giving a thumbs-up—further blurring the lines between civic engagement and financial incentive.

While no court has yet ruled the giveaways illegal, the controversy raises significant questions about the limits of campaign influence, the definition of voter inducement, and the role of wealthy individuals in shaping election outcomes through direct monetary incentives.