Fact check: What organizations are investigating Hasan's alleged dog abuse and what are their findings?

Executive Summary — Immediate picture and who is involved

The central claim is that multiple animal-welfare organizations and commentators have investigated or commented on allegations that Hasan Piker used a shock collar on his dog; the investigation landscape is a mix of formal agency roles and public advocacy statements rather than an obvious single criminal probe. Independent animal-welfare groups such as PETA have publicly weighed in, urging caution about shock-collar use, while advocacy and rescue organizations like the ASPCA, Animal Humane Society, and investigative projects describe the kinds of work they do investigating animal cruelty — though those organizations’ posted materials do not document a formal, named investigation into Hasan’s specific case. The available reporting shows Piker denying the shock-collar claim and framing the incident as a collar/AirTag mishap; PETA expressed hope his denial is true and reiterated its position that shock collars can harm animals ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}.

1. Who has publicly engaged — activists, humane groups and prosecutors stepping in

Public-facing animal-advocacy organizations have engaged with this controversy differently: PETA publicly responded to the allegations and urged that if true, shock collars are harmful, but also expressed hope the claims are untrue, signaling concern rather than announcing an investigation. PETA’s statements emphasize the potential for shock collars to cause burn wounds, chronic anxiety and displaced aggression in dogs and recommend positive-reinforcement methods instead ^{[1] [2]}. National rescue and investigative organizations such as the ASPCA and local humane-investigations teams describe their institutional capacities to investigate cruelty generally — supplying forensic support, partnering with law enforcement, and responding to neglect and fighting — yet the materials provided do not show those groups have opened or publicly confirmed casework specifically tied to Hasan ^{[4] [5] [6]}.

2. What law enforcement and prosecutorial resources could be involved if a criminal probe began

If the matter moved to criminal inquiry, the typical actors include animal-control units, county sheriff’s animal-crime teams and prosecutors with specialized resources; documents and descriptions from agencies such as the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and the American Prosecutors Research Institute illustrate how complex animal-cruelty prosecutions can be, requiring veterinary forensics, specialized statutes, and coordination across agencies. The Maricopa County model shows a unit that investigates every call and has produced arrests and seizures, demonstrating the pathway from complaint to enforcement; prosecutors’ guidance stresses partnerships with humane societies and veterinary experts are needed for successful cases ^{[7] [8]}. None of the supplied materials, however, indicate a named arrest or prosecution connected to Hasan’s allegation at the time of these reports.

3. What the principal subjects are saying — denial, explanation and advocacy responses

Hasan Piker publicly denied using a shock collar, explaining that his dog wore a training collar with an AirTag attached and that she “clipped herself,” producing a yelp that sparked viewer concern; his denial is the central counterclaim to the allegations, and it shifted parts of the public debate toward interpreting video context, equipment types, and intent. Piker’s statements appear in contemporaneous reporting that also documents he received threats tied to the controversy, which escalated public attention ^[3]. Advocacy responses from PETA maintain that even if the incident was accidental, shock collars are dangerous and positive reinforcement is preferable, framing animal-welfare policy preferences rather than adjudicating a specific allegation ^{[1] [2]}.

4. What investigators and organizations say they can do — forensic, rescue, and prosecutorial roles

Major animal-welfare and enforcement organizations outline the capabilities they bring to cruelty allegations: the ASPCA provides forensic evidence and partners with law enforcement; humane-investigations teams handle neglect, fighting and hoarding complaints; investigative projects focus on organized cruelty such as dogfighting — each has discrete roles that could be relevant depending on complaint content and jurisdiction. These organizations’ public-facing descriptions clarify that outcomes hinge on evidence collection, veterinary assessment, and whether a report is filed with the appropriate local authorities ^{[4] [5] [9] [6]}. The existing materials show organizational readiness and expertise but do not substitute for or confirm an active jurisdictional criminal investigation of Hasan’s conduct.

5. The bottom line — evidence, jurisdiction, and what’s missing from public records

The current public record presents three clear facts: advocacy groups voiced concern and urged humane practices, Hasan Piker denied wrongdoing and gave an alternative explanation, and institutional resources exist that could investigate if a formal complaint were filed. What is missing are court filings, police reports, or declarations from local humane-enforcement units explicitly opening an investigation into Hasan; the supplied sources contain organizational positions and general investigative descriptions but not a named, active probe tied to the allegations ^{[1] [3] [2] [4] [5] [9] [7]}. For readers seeking closure, the next step is to check for local law-enforcement releases or prosecutor statements in the relevant jurisdiction — without those records, public commentary and organizational policy positions remain the principal documented elements of this controversy.