About this app
About Brutal Santa
BGaming’s product chief tied the release directly to prior results. Julia Alekseeva, CPO at BGaming, said duel slots have proven to be a hit in the past, with titles like Clash of Gods Power Duel driving strong engagement, so the studio decided to take this further with Johnny vs Chicken. She added that the studio took two of its most recognizable characters and brought them together in what she called the ultimate BGaming IP showdown.
That language, an “IP showdown” between established characters, points to where the strategy could go next. If a duel format plus familiar faces reliably lifts engagement, BGaming has a repeatable template for future crossovers drawn entirely from its own library. Johnny vs Chicken reads less like a finished idea. It reads more like a first test of a shared-universe approach to slot IP.
The post BGaming Pits Two Signature Characters Against Each Other in Johnny vs Chicken appeared first on Vegas Slots Online News.
What is Brutal Santa?
A deepfake gambling advertisement claiming the father of Canadian soccer star Alphonso Davies was arrested over CA$3 million in purported online casino winnings is shining a spotlight on grey-market enforcement in Alberta’s newly regulated iGaming market.
According to reporting by The Edmonton Sun, an advertiser operating under the name “Prime Spin Zone” placed an ad on Instagram showing Davies’ father being arrested by Edmonton police.
The video shows a vault filled with cash, followed by a scene where Davies’ father is released after police allegedly determine the money came from legitimate gambling, the ad claims.
What is Brutal Santa?
Judge Kennedy explained in her ruling, “The court finds that Hasselback’s statements that continued representation in this matter would cause him to violate several ethical obligations trigger mandatory withdrawal under Model Rule 1.16(a) and is sufficient for granting his motion.” She added, “Hasselback need not be required to provide details, beyond his written motion, to establish that mandatory withdrawal is warranted,” and stated that requiring him “to specify the basis for his mandatory withdrawal could create the untenable situation of an attorney having to choose between his obligation of candor to the court and his obligation to maintain his client’s confidences.”
Unfortunately, because of that attorney-client privilege, it is difficult to know what types of ethical dilemmas Hasselback is facing. However, it’s likely just the mere hint at issues will be enough for IPI to find itself, once again, being more closely scrutinized. Where that leads is anyone’s guess, given gaming regulators’ reluctance to hold the company accountable for its actions.
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.”
