Podcaster and influencer Amanda Hirsch has issued a public apology following intense criticism for associating her personal commentary on the Lindsay Clancy trial with a sponsored partnership for the prediction market platform Polymarket. Hirsch, known for her show “Not Skinny But Not Fat” and Hulu’s “Get Real,” faced swift condemnation after she posted about the mistrial declaration on Friday, noting that Polymarket had predicted a “Not Guilty” verdict before adding the hashtag #Polymarketpartner.
Although Hirsch deleted the Instagram reel shortly after it was posted, screenshots of the content circulated widely, and further backlash erupted on Saturday when she attempted to share regular stories. In her subsequent grid apology, Hirsch described the move as “completely insensitive, wrong, and out of character,” stating she felt “sick” for not recognizing the inappropriateness of the timing.
“I became so consumed by the trial that I completely lost perspective,” Hirsch wrote, explaining that as a mother, the case had deeply affected her. She acknowledged that her judgment was terrible and emphasized that the lapse did not represent her true character. “I am so deeply sorry,” she added, noting that deleting the post did not erase the mistake.
The controversy highlights the growing friction between prediction markets and sensitive real-world events. Days prior to the Polymarket post, Hirsch had expressed conflicted feelings about the trial, advocating for compassion for Clancy while warning against the minimization of the crimes against her children. She criticized the fervent support rallying around Clancy, questioning where society’s compassion was leading the narrative.
The incident occurs against a backdrop of scrutiny regarding unregulated prediction platforms. Previously, Variety reported that companies like Polymarket and Kalshi spoiled the winner of “Survivor”‘s 50th season, drawing ire from host Jeff Probst. With the Clancy case resulting in a mistrial due to a single holdout juror, conspiracy theories have already emerged suggesting that juror may have been placing bets on the outcome.
As a mom myself, I can understand being consumed by a trial, but linking it to a commercial deal is just tone-deaf.
It’s wild that people are still surprised influencers exploit serious events for clout. This isn’t new behavior at all.
Is anyone else concerned about these prediction markets influencing actual legal outcomes? That juror theory is chilling.
Wait, she actually deleted it? Shame doesn’t seem to stick long enough when brand deals are on the line.
This feels incredibly insensitive. Monetizing a mistrial involving children is unacceptable, regardless of who the sponsor is.