Paris Nights

How to play Paris Nights

In cases of identity fraud, operators were advised to close accounts upon establishing fraud and to reserve balances when bank account ownership cannot be confirmed.

Regarding account takeovers, the guide emphasised technical mitigations such as two-factor authentication for withdrawals and changes to banking details.

For poker collusion and bot use, recommended contractual provisions allow operators to redistribute illegitimate winnings to affected players. The guide noted that courts have validated such actions when supported by robust data.

What is Paris Nights?

More relevant to DraftKings is the fact that under his leadership, the patent office has moved to significantly limit access to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) – the very board to which the gaming company is appealing in an effort to have the Cantor patent annulled.

Both Squires and his predecessor, Coke Morgan Stewart, made it harder for filers to get in front of the PTAB, typically citing patent ages or court rulings.

In April, Interactive Games LLC, a unit of Cantor, sued DraftKings and Flutter Entertainment’s FanDuel, alleging the two largest domestic online sportsbook operators infringed on its patents. That suit arrived a decade after Interactive Games brought similar litigation against the sports wagering giants, which was challenged by both companies.

About Paris Nights

George Hasselback is done with Imperial Pacific International (IPI). The attorney has been representing the controversial and incompetent casino operator as it defended itself in a lawsuit filed by Fox Financial, as well as others, but has now washed his hands and stepped away. He had filed a request to withdraw from representing the company on February 12, and a judge granted his petition yesterday. Magistrate Judge Heather Kennedy agreed with Hasselback in his assertion that continued representation would put him in an ethical conundrum.

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.