BattleFishing

About BattleFishing

This would grant the regulator enhanced powers to proactively enforce rules and restrict problematic advertising channels effectively.

Gambling ads are currently monitored by ASA under the CAP 16.1 code. Just this week, Midnite received its third ASA ruling. The operator was told to remove a TikTok advertisement that featured a young-looking character. 

The report singled out several marketing tactics which had been flagged as particuarly concerning.

What is BattleFishing?

This digital expansion coincided with a continued shrinkage in physical retail. Great Britain had 8,081 licensed premises at the end of the period, down 2% year-on-year.

Several operators have announced shop closures over recent months, including Entain and Flutter, citing a rising tax burden.

Online casino games remained the largest segment of the remote market, generating £5.7 billion ($7.6 billion) in GGY, with slots accounting for £4.8 billion ($6.4 billion) of that total.

What is BattleFishing?

IPI now has until this Friday to find a new lawyer to carry the six-case workload Hasselback had, but will most likely use this as an excuse to delay the ongoing legal battles. It won’t get very far with that, though, and perhaps Judge Kennedy expected IPI to try something. She added in her ruling that the attorney’s exit “may cause some delay, [but] that delay is not so much so that it would cause significant prejudice or adversely and materially affect the plaintiff.”

This particular lawsuit involving Fox Financial, one of a growing list IPI is battling, centers on an arrangement the company made with a third party, Forson Holdings. That entity had leased property from Fox in 2016, but fell behind. IPI had signed as a guarantor of that lease agreement and, as such, was responsible for covering Forson in the event payments weren’t made. However, it decided it didn’t need to follow the terms of the contract.

It seems like not a day goes by without IPI coming under fire for something else. The company’s chairwoman, Cui Li Jie, has already found herself in trouble and was previously held in contempt of court, but now has another black mark beside her name. She has been found in contempt again, this time for allegedly perjuring herself in court. A lawyer representing employees suing IPI and Cui produced evidence proving she had lied under oath, and Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona has now agreed. She issued her ruling this morning, with Cui only able to respond, through an interpreter, “I don’t know anything, I don’t understand English.”