Peking Luck

About Peking Luck

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.

In the suit brought earlier this year, the Cantor unit accuses the two gaming companies of infringing on five of its patents and requested an undisclosed amount of financial damages.

Interactive Games was once a part of Cantor Gaming, which no longer operates. That entity was familiar with controversy, enduring allegations of money laundering and nearly losing its Nevada license in 2018. The parent company sold the business in 2019.

What is Peking Luck?

Players typically play across various verticals, and by imposing restrictions on specific verticals or betting markets, engaged customers will look elsewhere to access these activities.

“If a customer finds black market sites that have all their preferred betting and gaming options, convenience dictates they will transfer a broad range of their expenditure there. Consumer recycling means that banning or restricting key products has a broader distortive impact on the entire market,” the report noted.

Notably for highly engaging verticals light online slots, if players are receiving a smaller-than-expected RTP (return to player), or bonuses have been restricted, they could again transition to an illegal offering where there are no such restrictions.

About Peking Luck

Tabcorp Holdings Limited, one of Australia’s largest wagering and media companies was also fined more than AU$2.7 million earlier this year. ACMA clarified that Tabcorp had violated telemarketing and spam regulations over a 16-month period. 

It had sent over 217,000 marketing emails and SMS messages within a 16-day window to customers who had explicitly unsubscribed. ACMA regarded the volume and timing of these messages as significant enough to warrant enforcement action. 

In response to the penalties, Dabble Sports has agreed to a two-year court-enforceable undertaking. It has obliged the company to commission an independent review of its compliance systems. Dabble must develop a board-approved plan to implement these changes with appropriate resources.