Now You See A DraftKings Surcharge, Now You Don’t | Sports Betting News | LSR Podcast 245
Play video
Now You See A DraftKings Surcharge, Now You Don’t | Sports Betting News
The plan for a DraftKings surcharge on winning bettors in high-tax states lasted just 13 days, as the company abandoned the idea shortly after FanDuel declined to match it. Plus, Missouri will vote on legalizing sports betting this fall, Nebraska might do the same, and Intralot might be in legal trouble in Washington DC.
Full transcript
Matt Brown (00:14):
Hello, and welcome to episode number 245 of the Legal Sports Report Podcast. My name is Matt Brown. That is Adam Candee. We are coming to you here just the two of us, like normal. Listen, I know it’s the brightest minds in all of the gaming industry, but you know what? Sometimes I say to Adam, I say, “Adam, I just want you today. I want me and you. I want us sitting here. I want just our time together. Not that we didn’t love Eric being on here last week, Adam, we did. I loved Eric being on here, and I can’t wait to have Eric back on here again, but sometimes I just need our quality time together.”
Adam Candee (00:46):
I appreciate that. And when it comes to being the brightest minds in the gaming industry, I think about it like going to Lowe’s and buying new lighting for the living room and they say, “Do you want soft white? Do you want daylight? Do you want warm white?” I’m a warm white. I’m definitely bright enough to be in the room, but certainly not the one who’s going to illuminate it the most.
Matt Brown (01:08):
So as a guy who actually recently had to redo the light bulbs in major areas in his home, I was unaware of the 17 different shades of light that now are available to everybody out there. And it’s pretty confusing because you’re not really sure exactly what you want for each one of these rooms. So I’m sure there’s an AI program that probably could have told me what I needed or whatever it might be, Adam, but I’ll let you know, I had to sit there and I was doing extensive research as I’m standing in a light bulb aisle, which I did not think I was going to have to do.
Adam Candee (01:38):
No, no. No one when they’re growing up thinks, “What’s life in my 40s going to look like? I’m going to be standing in the light bulb aisle trying to figure out the difference between lumens and LEDs and incandescents.”
Matt Brown (01:52):
Yes.
Adam Candee (01:52):
And no one tells you this.
Matt Brown (01:54):
They do not. They don’t. Do I need a light bulb to last 12 years? I don’t know. I guess. I don’t know. Is it worth paying the money?
Adam Candee (01:57):
Will I last 12 years? I don’t know.
Matt Brown (01:58):
I don’t know. Do I need to pay for it or do I just want to get another one in three years? I don’t know how it all works so we’ll just anyway, like you said, 40s problems here. Guys, everything we do, absolutely free. So please go ahead and subscribe, rate and review wherever you get your podcast. We appreciate it. We’ll talk Missouri, we’ll talk Nebraska, we’ll talk what’s going on with DC as well.
The plan for a DraftKings surcharge on winning bettors
(02:20):
But let’s kick things off here with the big story that came out that we actually spent an entire episode talking about last week. And then of course, the final decision was made by DraftKings, Adam, to not go forward with the surcharge that was at least talked about. And we mentioned it last week that it was not an official thing, that it was certainly something that was just in theory. And I actually got a lot of good feedback from our episode last week of people just saying, “Yeah, I understand what everybody’s saying with all of this.” And that being said, DraftKings ended up not going with it.
Adam Candee (02:58):
The DraftKings surcharge rests in peace after 13 days of existence. Does that mean that it will not undertaker.gif rise from the dead at some point? No, it certainly could, but here’s the news as we know it. Everyone was keeping an eye out for FanDuel’s earnings call, which happened this week. Flutter, I should say, including the FanDuel brand. And they made clear that they were not going to match the surcharge, the DraftKings plan to place on winning bettors in high-tax states. I’ve said that last week that I thought that was the most likely outcome. You said that last week that you thought it was the most likely outcome that they would not go with a surcharge, but they would leave it open in the future to do something similar. And really FanDuel didn’t address the future. They just said, “This is not something that we plan on doing right now.”
(03:51):
And I think the surprising part to me and to a lot of people is the speed at which DraftKings put out a statement immediately after the earnings call by FanDuel to say, “We always listen to our customers. We’re not going to go forward with the surcharge.” And that’s pretty much all we’ve heard from them at this point. After Jason Robins, the CEO of DraftKings, had gone in pretty hard in defense of the concept on the DraftKings earnings call to say that this is something that they needed to do in order to meet their bottom line with the tax increase in Illinois, with the high tax rate in New York. And of course, Pennsylvania has been high for a while. He also said on the DraftKings call that it would take “quite a lot” for DraftKings to choose to drop that surcharge plan. Well, reasonable question can be asked as to, were you just waiting to see what FanDuel did?
(04:47):
And DraftKings might argue against that concept. However, when you put out your statement almost immediately after the FanDuel earnings call, there’s a question about whether correlation is causation in that particular case. Now, I want to address part of what I’ve seen out on social media with some people dunking on DraftKings and saying, “Oh, it was such a terrible idea.” This and that. And I think that undersells the seriousness with which a company undertakes something like that. There has to be some level of research and staff work that has gone into, should we do this and how should we do this? It doesn’t come out of thin air. DraftKings doesn’t send Jason Robins out there to say, “You know what, snap, we’re going to do a surcharge on winning bettors in high-tax states.” I think it’s just a little too casual to dunk on DraftKings for it, but I do think there are serious questions that need to be asked about a publicly traded company announcing this type of plan and then immediately backtracking on it.
(05:53):
And we can get into that on this episode a little bit, Matt, but were you surprised that it happened as quickly as it did?
Matt Brown (05:59):
I think there was a little bit of Jerry McGuire in them possibly where they, “Who’s coming with me?” And it’s like they put it out there and waiting on somebody to be like, “Yeah, you know what? This is…” Or at least come out and say, “Even though we might not do this right this second, it is certainly something we might do in the future or have at least considered.” Or whatever, yada, yada, yada. And when that didn’t happen at all, then it went back to what you and Eric were talking about last week of it might really and truly come down to what FanDuel ends up doing in all of this. And certainly that seems to be what they, again, seems to be what they ended up doing here. And I agree with you. Listen, I’m sure there was an incredible amount of internal dialogue within the company of, “Do we just put the surcharge out in front of everybody?”
(06:48):
Remember they’re a DFS company, so they’ve dealt with all this hidden rake stuff, and is it fair to the customer for them to have to try to calculate the rake in their head, et cetera, et cetera. We said this on the thing last week, and this isn’t to say that this isn’t going to happen in the future, but to give credit where credit’s due, although I’m not jumping up and down about a surcharge getting tacked on a deal, but to give credit where credit is due, they didn’t just sneak this into futures holds, which they easily could have done and hid this.
(07:17):
Now you and I would’ve found out somewhere down the line because somebody would’ve crunched the numbers and somebody would’ve been like, “What the hell just happened to DraftKings futures markets? They’re holding three more percent than they were before.” So to give credit where credit’s due, they were upfront with all of this and did come out and just say, “Hey, this is the way we’re going to do it and how we’re going to go about it.” But now, Adam, does it lead us down the road of hold getting increased or we start to see a little bit more -112 lines instead of the -110 lines and all the different stuff? Is that something that is probably more imminent than we think?
Adam Candee (07:58):
That’s the reasonable next question that has to be asked after this decision by DraftKings to drop the surcharge. We have talked a lot about how customers at recreational books generally are not price-sensitive. That’s what we’ve seen so far in six years of the US market. We spent a lot of time last week talking about is there an exhaustible supply of people willing to play 10 leg parlays and are you going to turn through them or will people just stay because they like putting in their lottery tickets? Well, you could bury a lot of additional hold inside a same-game parlay with no one paying attention, right? It’s not all that difficult to change those prices on your most popular product to make it so that people are, that correlation on that bet goes from 13 to 1 down to 12 to 1. It’s not all that difficult to hold some of that back.
(08:53):
Now, does that accomplish the purpose that they want? I don’t know. What purpose did they want? That’s ultimately the bigger question here, because I’ve seen some, and when I say some, prominently Nigel Eccles, one of the founders of FanDuel, was getting into a back-and-forth with our Sam McQuillan on Twitter in which he was saying that he thought Sam was missing the point that DraftKings was trying to signal to states not to change their tax rate or for certain states not to go for a higher tax rate if they legalize. And the argument is reasonable. We talked about it last week on the podcast, that this was meant as something to send a message. However, if you’re going to pull it back 13 days after you launch it, you’re telling legislators you’re not that serious. And beyond that, you’re also making it clear that you don’t need it that badly, right?
(09:48):
You don’t need the money that badly that you’re saying, “Yep, come hell or high water, we’ve got to do this because we’ve got to find a way to make money.” And the other piece of this is that DraftKings shaved about 15% off its share price last week. The market reacted terribly to this plan. That seems to be a lack of market research on the DraftKings part to understand what would happen there. Now, it’s bounced back this week, not all the way to where the share price was two weeks ago, but they did get a positive response from saying they wouldn’t go forward with this. But my question to someone back like Nigel is to say, “Is it worth shaving 15% off your share price to send some trial balloon message out to legislators?” I think there are a number of better ways that they could have done that.
Matt Brown (10:30):
Yeah. I think the other thing that this is really going … If they want to test the market, Adam, with what they were saying that they believe that their product is just better and that people are going to play their product because they just enjoy playing on DraftKings, right? They like the menu better, that they like the way that it functions better, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I think instead of adding a surcharge on, it’s like we said, so what if you did move lines to -111? Now you’re not going to get the same money out of that that you would get from the surcharge or something like that. But listen, over the course of thousands and thousands and thousands and tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of bets, people who don’t do this on a daily basis, that extra penny, it means something, right?
(11:17):
And it means something over the course of tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of bets, whatever. So it’s like, could you if you’re DraftKings say, “OK, we believe in our product, we believe in our customer base, we believe people are loyal, we need to make a little bit of extra money here or whatever, we’re not going to do anything drastic. Instead of -110, it’s -111 now.” That I think would then be the true test of customer loyalty. And would someone leave for a penny, Adam? You know what I’m saying? Would someone leave for a penny? Would they go to DraftKings? Would they go to Fanatics? Would they go to MGM? Would they go to see, would they go to whoever for a penny? And I think you would get an answer pretty quick as to whether people would do that or not. My guess is there would not be very many people that left if you did it in that fashion as opposed to tacking on a surcharge to winning bets.
(12:05):
Because I have enough casual bettor friends of mine. I’ve talked about a ton of them here on … I’ve talked about it a ton here on the podcast, but it happened again just this past week where they’re asking me, “Hey man, FedEx Playoffs are starting. Who are you betting for golf?” Right? And I’m like, “Ah, I like this guy. I like this guy. I like this guy.” Right? Well, they showed me the ticket of them betting these guys. Adam, they went to quite literally the worst price you could get in the entire market to bet these guys as opposed to going to one of the other … They’re in Louisiana, there’s seven other books that they could have bet at or whatever. And it all went back to the same thing we’ve talked about that I’ve brought up on this podcast for the last year: They like the rewards, they don’t care.
(12:45):
They just want to bet at the same place because they get status and they get the reward and they don’t care. One number they bet a guy was 33 to 1 and literally had they opened another app, the guy was 45 to 1, right? I mean that is a lot that you’re leaving on the table, but they don’t care because they like the rewards that they’re getting all this. So I don’t know. I think that there is a way to test market loyalty and try to make a little bit of extra money and try to test what you believe to be the best product in the market and see if people stay or not. And I think if you did it in a micro fashion that maybe you would accomplish at least a little bit of what you’re trying to do.
Adam Candee (13:21):
Bring up another idea. What if you try to get the money on the other side by not spending it? What if your promos just disappear? What if you basically say, “You know what? In this state, that state and the other state, no promos. Period. No profit boosts, right? Nothing. We do nothing for you.” Now, they’ve already done some of the slash of marketing spend, but I think that also could test out product to say, “If you want to play our product, you get nothing extra. You like our product so much that you’re going to play it despite the fact that there are no extra tokens, there are no anything, there’s no ‘bet 25 to get 25.’ There’s nothing whatsoever. You’ve got to play us because you like us better.” I think that is another way that you can test it that doesn’t require the PR hit and the reputation hit. And frankly, in some level, the clout hit of going out there and doing what they did with the surcharge because DraftKings ultimately sent a message to the market that we are number two. If FanDuel doesn’t do this, then we can’t do this.
(14:28):
And there’s been such a clear battle between these two at the top, and it was only last summer that we were talking about, did DraftKings catch FanDuel? Right?
Matt Brown (14:38):
Yeah.
Adam Candee (14:38):
There were some states in which they had better market share, and we were saying, going into football season, it’s reasonable to ask, is DraftKings now a co-number one with FanDuel or are they going to pull ahead? To me, this doesn’t send number one vibes. This sends number two vibes. It says, “We are number two, and we’re not going to do it if FanDuel doesn’t do it.” Because FanDuel wasn’t the first book to come out and say, “We’re not doing it.” You had smaller books like BetRivers and others coming out and saying, “Yeah, this isn’t for us. We’re not going to do a surcharge.” So to me, if you’re in DraftKings’ position, there are just a lot of post-mortem questions now that you need to ask yourself about how this all happened, what you said to the market and how you recover from it before football season.
(15:21):
Because the other piece of this equation is that you couldn’t have done this at a worse time because we’re just about to go into the prime customer acquisition season. Maybe FanDuel already had money planned to try to get some of DraftKings’ customers. Maybe others are out there saying, “You know what? We didn’t think we had an opportunity to poach from DraftKings, and now maybe we do.” Because the fact that DraftKings dropped the surcharge is going to get a lot less coverage and a lot less play than the fact that they put it in the first place, right? You’re going to get a lot more thought from people in the market of, “Wait a minute, isn’t that the book that charges more?” “Oh, no. Well, they said they were going to do it and then they didn’t do it.” “Oh, well, will they do it again?” And that’s the sort of thing that I don’t think you really need right now coming into September.
Missouri will vote on legalizing sports betting this fall
Matt Brown (16:05):
It’s not as sexy as California or Texas or even Florida. Whenever we start talking about states that are will they, won’t they, what’s going on here? But listen, a state is a state is a state. We like to be able to talk about maybe bringing this to new bettors out there. So Adam, what’s going on in Missouri?
Adam Candee (16:23):
We have the final official go-ahead from the Missouri Secretary of State’s Office that sports betting is going to be on the ballot in Missouri this year. In November 2024, voters will have the opportunity to legalize online sports betting in Missouri. This ends years of a stalemate at the legislature that was caused by Senator Denny Hoskins, who was basically obstructing everything to try to get VLTs, video lottery terminals, these slot-like products that go in a lot of gas stations, convenience stores and other places along the road included in any sports betting legislation. And finally, you had a coalition of pro sports teams led by the St. Louis Cardinals as well as FanDuel and DraftKings who put more than $6 million into a signature gathering effort to get it on the ballot. We find out this week that they were successful in gathering enough signatures and there will be the opportunity to vote on this in November.
(17:20):
Now we have a page at Legal Sports Report where we’re tracking polling in Missouri, and I would say it’s a toss-up right now as to whether this passes. We’re not looking at anything like California where the polling was consistently saying that this had no chance of getting through. Do believe it’s a true toss-up in Missouri, and it’s important to remember that this is going on the ballot at a time when president will also be on the ballot, which means you’re going to get the maximum turnout for this particular issue. And because you’re going to get maximum turnout, do start to wonder how accurate the polling really is because you don’t know who’s going to come out in a presidential year. So a lot to keep track of in Missouri, but there will be the opportunity for at least one state to choose to legalize sports betting this year.
Nebraska might do the same
Matt Brown (18:09):
Yeah, we’re trying to get two in there, and that’s where we get with Nebraska here, not to the state, not to the level of Missouri quite yet where it is definitely going to be on the ballot, but we might, there’s hope out there.
Adam Candee (18:27):
It takes me back to doing a work trip out to Lincoln, Nebraska, years ago and walking through the Capitol in Nebraska and seeing the names of some folks who ended up becoming some pretty important politicians on the national stage and also noticing that it’s a one-house legislature. It is, as they say, unicameral, and the unicameral legislature is in special session right now as requested by Governor Jim Pillen with the hope of providing property tax relief to folks in the state. One of the ways that they would like to be able to provide an offset is by considering legalizing online sports betting. There already is in-person sports betting in Nebraska. Now, as we record this on Thursday, this is a live discussion right now in the legislature. We are tracking what’s going on. It did pass through a committee earlier in the legislature so that it has the potential to be considered on the floor and like we talked about, unicameral, which means it only has to get to one floor and pass one floor in order to make it to the ballot.
(19:34):
Now, here’s the key thing that our Pat Evans did the research on. You can read more about it at LegalSportsReport.com. If three-fifths of the legislature chooses to approve sports betting for a ballot vote and legislators did change this from approving it to putting it to a vote of the people, if three-fifths approve, this would go on the 2026 ballot. You would need four-fifths of the legislature approving it right now for it to make it to the 2024 ballot. It’s a matter of timing and the rules in Nebraska to essentially say, “If you want this to go on the ballot so quickly, you need 80% of the legislature to say this is something that needs to go in front of people right now. You still need 60% just to get in front of people by 2026.” So not impossible, I think to get the three-fifths; four-fifths could be a pretty heavy lift.
(20:28):
That special session has been ongoing for more than a week in Nebraska, and let me tell you, from having been through a number of this type of special session event in my lifetime, this is when deals start to get done, when people are tired of being away from their family at a time they didn’t have to plan to be in a special session, you just want to get something passed so that you can get out of there. Now, I would still say it’s an underdog for sports betting to be included in Nebraska during this special session, but that doesn’t mean it’s dead because remember that Pillen, the governor, had already said he was going to put forward a priority bill in the coming legislature in 2025 to legalize sports betting online in Nebraska. So there is a chance if it doesn’t happen in this special session that it just gets considered a few months from now.
Matt Brown (21:16):
And Adam, a good time for us to take a little aside here. If you guys are putting together your bucket list trips for sports and things like that, one of the ones that doesn’t get brought up enough is going to the College World Series. One of the best times I had in a lot of these little sports bucket list trips, you go, everybody’s just super hyped to be there. Obviously if a fan base is following their baseball team, it is a very, very loyal fan base, right? Because it’s typically, yeah, sure, you see a bunch of fans on road games for football, and certainly if your team makes the tournament or something like that, you might get some people traveling for the basketball side of things, but man, in baseball you get the loyals of the loyal, because it’s not the most popular collegiate sport or something.
(22:00):
So you go and that whole experience, buying the package go, you end up going to games of teams of other schools and stuff just because of the experience and all of the stuff that’s going on there and all the tailgating and everybody’s friendly. It’s like not that same vibe you get from football whenever you go to a road game where people maybe might be nice or maybe might want to spit on you, you don’t really know. But yeah, the College Baseball World Series up there in Omaha is amazing.
Adam Candee (22:25):
Did you have a rooting interest, Matt?
Matt Brown (22:27):
Yeah, a little bit of a rooting interest when I went for sure.
Adam Candee (22:32):
You might be fan or an alum or a former of a pretty successful college baseball team.
Matt Brown (22:39):
But that being said, it is, like I said, the atmosphere is so, so different because you go to road football games and it’s like you find some fans who are not so polite. That aren’t welcoming to you to come over and like, “Oh, hey, would you like to have a beer?” Or, “Do you want to try this food that we made or something?” Yeah, there are places you don’t get that in the SEC for sure, but man, you head up to Omaha for the College World Series, it’s a really, really good time.
Adam Candee (23:06):
Well, as a Yankees fan, I have a system at this point of how I do things when I go on the road, especially if I’m going to a stadium I haven’t been to before, usually I’m going for the whole three game series. Night one I go unmarked because I want to get a gauge of how crazy these fans really are, and if it’s not fights in the stands or getting something thrown at me the night two the jerseys can start to come out and we can really go for it.
Matt Brown (23:35):
Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Because again, we’re too old. We have too many light bulb brightnesses to try to pick out for the … We don’t need to be getting in fights in the stands and stuff. We can’t.
Adam Candee (23:44):
Buddy, you want to talk about a bright idea? Yo ho ho ho.
Intralot might be in legal trouble in Washington DC
Matt Brown (23:47):
Hey, I see what you did there. All right, let’s close things out here with DC.
Adam Candee (23:52):
Are we closing it out in DC or are we just getting started in DC? That’s the question that we have. This is one of the more interesting stories that we’ve covered in a while because there are not a lot of clear answers to it. There was a report late last week from an outlet called the Washington City Paper that the DC attorney general is investigating Intralot, the lottery provider in DC and of course the ignominious former sports betting provider online for the district. Now, the details of that potential investigation are not particularly clear in part because the records were sealed. What we saw was this report from Washington City Paper that was linked to a document at the DC Superior Court on a site called Document Cloud. Not to get too far into the weeds for you here, but the document cloud link was broken.
(24:49):
We went and searched the DC Superior Court website, couldn’t find anything involving Intralot. There were a number of other outlets out there that just aggregated the Washington City Paper report and said, “Oh, they’re under investigation, Intralot.” This and that. And we were like, “We want to see a document before we’re totally sure about this, and we go with it.” And did some legwork, talked to some nice folks, the DC court where they’re able to point us to where there is a judge’s order from August 1st that essentially looks like it’s granting something to Intralot, right? And I think Intralot is fighting some of what’s being requested as part of this probe, which could be a criminal probe based on what we’re seeing here involving the DC attorney general. There’s a lot of discussion that you can read more about in Pat Evans’ article at LSR in which the section of code under which the DC attorney general is requesting things is referenced, and you talk about what could be potentially in there, but right now everything is sealed.
(25:50):
All we know is that there is some matter between the DC attorney general’s office and Intralot, and given the fact that we now have an open market in DC and that Intralot has fallen out of favor and that there were a lot of questions asked by us as it was happening about the no-bid contract that Intralot got and the subpar product that it provided over the course of almost six years, that we might be looking at further questions about whether it is the procurement of the contract, whether it is the execution of the contract. There’s a lot to look at when it comes to Intralot and DC, and we will be tracking it as it goes.
Matt Brown (26:26):
Yeah, I’m not going to speculate, but I’ll just say, I bet you they find something, Adam. I’m just going to say, I’m just going to … I bet you they find something. Seems like something that you find something with something like that.
Adam Candee (26:38):
You know what? I will let you put your Columbo or your Matlock hat on and do the investigation and you can work right alongside us as we find out more.
Matt Brown (26:48):
Guys, like we said, everything we do, absolutely free here, so please go in, subscribe, rate and review on your podcast player of choice. Also, all these stories over on LegalSportsReport.com are all free as well.
Adam Candee (27:01):
Matt, before you wrap it up, just one note, if you’re a dedicated enough listener that you followed this deep into the podcast, first of all, thank you.
Matt Brown (27:08):
Thank you.
Adam Candee (27:09):
But you’re probably invested enough in the space to know a little bit about Legal Sports Report and the operation that we run. This has been out there on LinkedIn and on the Legal Sports Report Twitter, that’s @LSPReport on Twitter, but we are hiring right now for a full-time reporter to work with our team at Legal Sports Report seeking candidates from any old background to be honest with you, we’ve hired people from a business background, from a sports background. We’ve hired someone who most recently was working in the Department of Taxation for a state of the union. So we will consider just about anybody out there if we think that they fit our team, great opportunity to come and work with Legal Sports Report. Go find that job on LinkedIn or on our LinkedIn page or on Twitter for more information.
Matt Brown (27:55):
How many words per minute must you be able to type for this position?
Adam Candee (27:59):
Oh, we definitely subscribe to the Infinite Monkeys with Infinite Typewriters theory that if you just pound the keyboard long enough, something good will come out. It’s not a matter of speed.
Matt Brown (28:08):
Do you remember in job listings, they would just be like, “Must be able to type X words per minute.” And whatever, and I was like, back in the day, you’d be like, “All right, are you going to test me?”
Adam Candee (28:16):
Proficiency in Microsoft Word. Yeah, that’s not anything we’ll be asking about.
Matt Brown (28:21):
It’s like, you going to put me on the microscope? Really? Going to see how many words per minute I can type? All right. Let’s see. We’ll see if we can figure that out. Again, guys, all the stories, everything we talked about here, you can go find the words over on LegalSportsReport.com, so please go in and take in Adam and company, everything that they are doing over there, they’re watching and listening and reading and summarizing so you don’t have to. For Adam, I’m Matt. Talk to you guys next week.
The post Now You See A DraftKings Surcharge, Now You Don’t | Sports Betting News | LSR Podcast 245 appeared first on Legal Sports Report.
Welcome to Billionaire Club Co LLC, your gateway to a brand-new social media experience! Sign up today and dive into over 10,000 fresh daily articles and videos curated just for your enjoyment. Enjoy the ad free experience, unlimited content interactions, and get that coveted blue check verification—all for just $1 a month!
Account Frozen
Your account is frozen. You can still view content but cannot interact with it.
Please go to your settings to update your account status.
Open Profile Settings