Have animal welfare organizations or authorities investigated Hasan Piker for animal abuse?

1. How the controversy began: a short clip and rapid accusation

A brief livestream clip in which Piker tells his dog to settle and the dog suddenly yelps circulated widely and prompted viewers to accuse him of using a shock collar; reporting across outlets notes that the clip’s virality ignited fierce online debate and accusations of animal abuse ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

2. Responses from Piker and the online ecosystem

Piker publicly denied the shock‑collar allegations and described the dog’s reaction as a minor mishap during follow‑up broadcasts, according to coverage in The Express Tribune and other outlets ^[3]. Coverage also shows the dispute became enmeshed in ongoing personal feuds among creators — notably Ethan Klein’s commentary — which magnified attention and sharpened accusations ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Animal‑welfare voices weighed in, but not as investigators

Conservation and animal‑welfare organizations entered the conversation on social media and in interviews: PETA is quoted warning that shock collars are “dangerous and downright cruel” and urging positive‑reinforcement training as an alternative, but these are advocacy statements about shock collars generally rather than indications of an NGO‑led probe into Piker himself ^[1].

4. New clips and escalation within creator communities

After the initial clip, additional video snippets surfaced and were shared by other creators; some alleged multiple instances of similar movement and reaction in different videos, intensifying online claims that Piker had repeatedly used a collar ^[4]. Reporting describes the controversy as “CollarGate” in streamer circles and notes allegations from ex‑community members but does not document independent verification of electroshocking in the footage ^[4].

5. Where mainstream reporting stands on formal investigations

Across the cited coverage, journalists describe viral accusations, denials, and community debate but do not report that animal‑welfare authorities or law enforcement opened formal investigations into Piker. Forbes, Out.com, The Express Tribune and other pieces focus on public reaction and Piker’s responses rather than announcing any regulatory or prosecutorial action ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

6. Differing narratives and possible motivations to watch

Two competing narratives dominate: one frames the clips as evidence of abusive training with a shock collar, amplified by rival creators and outraged viewers; the other frames the backlash as unproven, driven by online feuds and rapid social‑media judgment, with outlets noting Islamophobic attacks and partisan targeting in the comments ^{[2] [1]}. Readers should note that both publicity dynamics and personal rivalries can skew how evidence is presented and interpreted ^{[1] [2]}.

7. What the available sources do not say — key gaps

Available sources do not mention any official complaint lodged with animal‑welfare agencies, no inspection by authorities, and no formal investigation announced by law enforcement or regulatory bodies into Hasan Piker’s conduct ^{[1] [3] [4]}. They also do not present a forensic expert analysis conclusively proving a shock collar was used in the clips cited ^[4].

8. Practical takeaways and how to follow developments

Current reporting documents public accusations, denials, and advocacy commentary but no authoritative finding or enforcement action; readers should treat viral video claims as contested evidence until an independent investigation or forensic analysis is published ^{[1] [4]}. To track developments, follow reputable outlets that reported the story (Forbes, The Express Tribune) and look for statements from animal‑welfare authorities or law enforcement, which the sources do not yet cite ^{[1] [3]}.