Attila The Hun

About Attila The Hun

According to the committee, robust evidence now links gambling advertising to increased participation and associated harms. 

Committee Chair Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede highlighted that, since 2020, the growth of online marketing techniques and associated harms have shifted the debate substantially.

“The time was right to reassess this crucial policy area, focusing on the topic of gambling advertising where the former committee’s strong recommendations have been largely unaddressed and where substantial developments in the gambling advertising landscape since 2020 have demanded a re-evaluation of the policy options,” he said.

About Attila The Hun

Excluding lotteries, the Gambling Commission reported that GGY rose 4.7% to £13.2 billion ($17.7 billion) between April 2025 and March 2026.

Growth was strongest online, where remote casino, betting, and bingo GGY climbed 6.9% to £8.3 billion ($11.1 billion), compared with a modest 1.1% increase across land-based sectors.

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.

What is Attila The Hun?

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.”