About this app
About Invading Vegas
“It started off pretty good when the new management and the spin-off was completed,” he comments. “They had a really good pipeline of customers, and I mean, their projections looked pretty solid.
“[But] part of that was some sweepstakes operators, and I think that market became a bit more uncertain compared to when they started to look at those kinds of customers. And then they also had, they called it a tier one customer I think in Brazil, which was supposed to launch in early 2026, but then they decided not to enter that market. So I think they had some opportunities that did not end up as expected.”
While Ahlberg explains GiG is experiencing B2B headwinds, he also views the 888Africa deal as an opportunistic one. This is confirmed by Richards, who describes the acquisition as a “targeted, opportunistic move” with “compelling” economics.
What is Invading Vegas?
According to CNN Brazil, the government is considering expanding restrictions on betting advertising and banning online casino games. The idea would be to maintain only sports betting.
The decision to use a provisional measure means the restrictions can take effect immediately, less than a month before the elections. This is the clearest indication yet that the sector is being used for electoral purposes to try and secure Lula’s re-election.
The drafting of the text is reportedly in the hands of the Civil House, with some believing that it serves an electoral purpose, meaning Lula potentially riding the wave of criticism against the sector.
What is Invading Vegas?
There is no guarantee the Supreme Court will hear the case but a separate appeals court ruling from 28 August bolsters its chances. In that case, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit ruled unanimously in favour of the state of Nevada, creating a circuit court split, which is a hallmark of many Supreme Court cases.
“We’re calling on the Supreme Court to resolve this issue and recognise that Congress did not silently make the sports-betting industry immune from state law,” Davenport said in a statement.
New Jersey stakeholders are no stranger to the importance of a Supreme Court review. The state lost every case in the lead-up to the PASPA repeal, except for the one that mattered most in the end, and it could be the same in this matter as Kalshi has prevailed thus far in state court and the Third Circuit. Davenport’s petition cites that fateful PASPA ruling in its introduction.
