Big Tuna Fortune

What is Big Tuna Fortune?

One of the proposals could be voted on next week by the city council and would directly affect the city’s clubs.

The meeting brought together 40 professionals from the clubs’ legal, communications and marketing departments, as well as executives from companies in the betting sector. Club officials are concerned about the financial impact of the measures, which could impact sponsorship contracts signed with betting companies.

One of the main concerns is Bill 560/2025, which is currently making its way through the council. The proposal prohibits advertising by betting companies at events in the city of São Paulo. This applies to events organised by public or private entities, whether for-profit or non-profit.

What is Big Tuna Fortune?

Safeguarding has reappeared as a focal point for the regulator. In July of this year, ANJ imposed a €500,000 ($572,797) fine on an unnamed online betting operator, referred to as Company X, for not adequately identifying and supporting customers exhibiting signs of problematic gambling. 

The fine followed an investigation that found Company X had failed to correctly identify 29 high-risk players at an appropriate risk level. Six players were missed entirely and 23 were misclassified at a lower risk tier. 

The regulator also launched a public awareness campaign earlier this year during the 2026 World Cup to warn of potential gambling addiction risks associated with increased sports betting during the tournament. 

What is Big Tuna Fortune?

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.”