Suntrust gets additional over €15 million loan for Westside City hotel project 

An IPSOS , published today and commissioned by , reveals strong public support for stricter regulations on gambling advertising in the UK. This push for reform comes amid heightened advertising activity during the Euro 2024 and growing concerns about the impacts of gambling promotions on vulnerable groups, particularly children and problem gamblers.

New data on the impact of gambling ads

GambleAware’s survey revealed that ads prompted approximately 40% of problem gamblers to overspend. Additionally, 24% of respondents who had gambled in the past year took gambling-related action after seeing an advert, with this figure rising to 79% among those experiencing gambling problems.

The Betting & Gaming Council (BGC) maintains that there is no established causal link between gambling ads and problem gambling, citing government research. However, GambleAware is challenging the previous government's stance on causation with its new data.

Public support for stricter regulations

Recent research by GambleAware indicates strong public backing for tighter controls on gambling advertising. The study found that nearly three-quarters of British consumers believe there should be more regulations for gambling ads, with two-thirds feeling there are currently too many.

66% of those surveyed expressed concern about the impact of gambling ads on children, and 61% opposed the presence of gambling logos on football shirts.

GambleAware’s proposed measures

GambleAware is advocating for comprehensive restrictions on betting advertisements at sporting events, which includes the removal of sponsorship logos from players' jerseys and all stadium advertisements.

It is also calling for a pre-watershed ban on gambling advertisements across television, radio, and video on demand. Additionally, GambleAware proposes that all gambling adverts should include health warnings to better inform the public about the risks and dangers associated with gambling.

The charity argues that the absence of significant changes in gambling advertising in the recent Gambling Act white paper was a missed opportunity. The charity's CEO, Zoe Osmond, explains that gambling advertising has been largely "overlooked," despite exposing vulnerable groups to harm.

Overcoming stigma as a barrier to seeking help

According to the survey, about 64% of those experiencing gambling problems have not spoken to anyone about it, often due to stigma and discrimination. Many feel ashamed or worried about judgement, while others believe they can handle the problem themselves. Despite this, 76% of those who sought help felt better for doing so, and 63% wished they had done so sooner.

Upcoming SiGMA event: Click  to find out all about SiGMA East Europe powered by Soft2Bet happening in Budapest, September 2024.

Several DraftKings employees are facing serious allegations after a New York resident, identified in court documents as “John Doe”, claimed his personal information was leaked, resulting in a distressing assault and extortion attempt. This legal dispute has garnered significant public attention.

The incident reportedly began in March 2023 when John Doe, residing in Long Island City, was approached on a subway platform by an assailant who aggressively demanded $500,000. It's alleged that the assailant had been waiting for John Doe outside his apartment for several hours before confronting him at the subway platform.

The lawsuit claims this demand was linked to Gadoon "Spanky" Kyrollos, a prominent figure in sports betting.

John Doe asserts that his sensitive details were obtained through undisclosed means involving employees of DraftKings. According to the lawsuit, DraftKings is accused of exposing John Doe's personal information, including his address, betting history, and financial records, to Kyrollos and potentially others. The plaintiff claims this breach made him vulnerable to threats and physical harm, culminating in a terrifying assault that has left him living in constant fear for his safety.

DraftKings has vehemently denied these accusations, stating there is no evidence that any of its employees leaked confidential customer information. The company's response challenges the allegations as unsubstantiated. DraftKings also reiterated its commitment to customer security and privacy.

A DraftKings spokesman told Sports Handle: “In the complaint, the plaintiff does not identify any DraftKings employee, but rather alleges on ‘information and belief’ that an unknown and unidentified DraftKings employee provided private account information to ‘Spanky’ and to additional unnamed third parties. DraftKings has found no evidence of anyone at DraftKings providing plaintiff’s information to a third-party, and DraftKings denies acknowledging any such “security breach”.”

Spanky Kyrollos to the plaintiff's claims in a social media post. According to Spanky, the anonymous plaintiff and his attorney, Steve Jacobs, are one and the same person.

Spanky claims he had a contentious partnership with Steve Jacobs. He explained that, due to being banned from betting by certain operators, including DraftKings, he relies on bettors like Steve Jacobs to place bets. Despite their allegedly successful collaboration, Spanky claims that Steve Jacobs never shared any of the earnings with him.

This legal battle is linked to broader concerns about the security of personal data in the iGaming industry. With more states legalising and regulating sports gambling, protecting customer information from exploitation has become increasingly crucial. The DraftKings case, regardless of the veracity of the allegations, serves as a reminder of the potential risks individuals face when their information is mishandled.

As the legal proceedings continue, they are likely to spark discussions about regulatory frameworks and corporate responsibilities when it comes to consumer protection and .

 Summit powered by Soft2Bet, will take place in Budapest from 2-4 September 2024.

Sir Philip Davies, considered to be a very prominent figure in the Conservative Party, has been reported to be involved in the controversy involving election betting. The allegations suggest that Davies placed a bet of £8,000 against his own victory in the forthcoming election, a move that has stirred up considerable debate.

Davies, who is vying for the Shipley seat in West Yorkshire, has been a significant player in the UK political scene. His candidature, however, has been overshadowed by the betting scandal. The controversy has raised questions about the ethics of a candidate betting against their own success, and whether such actions could potentially influence the outcome of the election.

When questioned about the alleged bet, Davies responded with a dismissive attitude, stating, “What’s it got to do with you whether I did or didn’t.” He further asserted that the bet was “nobody’s business,” a statement that has only fuelled the ongoing speculation.

Despite the controversy, Davies remains committed to his campaign, expressing his determination to win the election. He stated, “I hope to win. I’m busting a gut to win. I expect to lose.” This paradoxical stance, hoping for victory while expecting defeat, adds another layer of complexity to the situation.

Interestingly, this is not the first time Davies has been associated with such a bet. He admitted to having placed a similar bet on himself during the 2005 election, which he ultimately won, causing his bet to “go down the pan.”

In the face of Davies maintains his innocence. He invites anyone who believes he has acted illegally to make their accusations, confident in his assertion that he has not broken any laws.

This incident has cast a spotlight on the issue of election betting, prompting a broader discussion about its implications on the democratic process. As the controversy continues to unfold, the focus remains on Davies and the outcome of his election campaign.

The nature of politics is indeed unpredictable, where even a seasoned politician like Sir Philip Davies has not ben immune to this controversy. As the date for the election approaches, this extraordinary

Sir Philip Davies, considered to be a very prominent figure in the Conservative Party, has been reported to be involved in the controversy involving election betting. The allegations suggest that Davies placed a bet of £8,000 against his own victory in the forthcoming election, a move that has stirred up considerable debate.

Davies, who is vying for the Shipley seat in West Yorkshire, has been a significant player in the UK political scene. His candidature, however, has been overshadowed by the betting scandal. The controversy has raised questions about the ethics of a candidate betting against their own success, and whether such actions could potentially influence the outcome of the election.

When questioned about the alleged bet, Davies responded with a dismissive attitude, stating, “What’s it got to do with you whether I did or didn’t.” He further asserted that the bet was “nobody’s business,” a statement that has only fuelled the ongoing speculation.

Despite the controversy, Davies remains committed to his campaign, expressing his determination to win the election. He stated, “I hope to win. I’m busting a gut to win. I expect to lose.” This paradoxical stance, hoping for victory while expecting defeat, adds another layer of complexity to the situation.

Interestingly, this is not the first time Davies has been associated with such a bet. He admitted to having placed a similar bet on himself during the 2005 election, which he ultimately won, causing his bet to “go down the pan.”

In the face of Davies maintains his innocence. He invites anyone who believes he has acted illegally to make their accusations, confident in his assertion that he has not broken any laws.

This incident has cast a spotlight on the issue of election betting, prompting a broader discussion about its implications on the democratic process. As the controversy continues to unfold, the focus remains on Davies and the outcome of his election campaign.

The nature of politics is indeed unpredictable, where even a seasoned politician like Sir Philip Davies has not ben immune to this controversy. As the date for the election approaches, this extraordinary