A judge has ruled gaming giant Aristocrat Technologies cannot patent its Lightning Link electronic poker machine, after six High Court Justices split on whether the popular game was eligible for patent protection.
Aristocrat Leisure has hit back at a consumer class action filed over allegedly illegal ‘social casino’ apps, saying the class action will have to grapple with the fact that the games are played with ‘virtual currency’ that can’t be cashed in.
Victoria’s gambling watchdog has cleared Crown to continue operating its casino in Melbourne, finding the gaming giant has addressed the serious and systemic failings identified by the Finkelstein royal commission.
Financial crimes regulator AUSTRAC has launched an enforcement investigation into British online betting company Bet365, after receiving an audit report on the company’s compliance with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing laws.
The NSW Independent Casino Commission has announced a second inquiry into embattled casino operator Star, amid concerns about its response to Adam Bell SC’s first inquiry.
SkyCity has reached an agreement with AUSTRAC in proceedings alleging it allowed $4 billion in suspicious transactions, setting aside $73 million to cover penalty and costs.
A former senior media advisor for the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission has sued the watchdog, alleging she was fired after complaining about bullying behaviour by a senior employee.
Gaming giant Aristocrat is suing its head of design for alleged intellectual property infringement and has secured orders restraining him from using or disclosing any of thousands of company files he is accused of copying.
Aristocrat Leisure and its mobile gaming units Big Fish Games and Product Madness have been hit with a consumer class action, after a US class action alleging Big Fish apps constituted illegal gambling settled for US$155 million.
The Star is challenging a finding from the commissioner of taxation that the casino giant owes $5.3 million on payments made to junket operators, arguing the payments were not ‘payments for operating or promoting a junket’.