About this app
What is Sanctuary?
What the president does not acknowledge is that the government relies on revenue from the sector. In just the first seven months of 2026, BRL8.747 billion generated by sports betting has already flowed into public coffers. The Federal Revenue Service estimates the total could reach BRL16 billion by the end of the year. In 2025, nearly BRL9 billion was collected from sportsbooks.
The burning question is where such funds will come from if Lula shuts down the betting industry. Yet, no one points out to him that players will simply migrate to the illegal market. Betting will continue to exist, but without formal tax revenue, oversight or player protections.
It will be up to the government to effectively curb the illegal market so the regulated sector continues to generate taxes and jobs while upholding responsible gambling practices. By riding the wave of criticism against betting companies, the government is diverting attention from the true cause of household indebtedness.
What is Sanctuary?
Not only has this made the industry a hotbed of innovation, but it’s also created an ideal environment for growth for those with cross-industry experience. Ideas from outside are now being welcomed, with companies finally embracing proven concepts from other sectors.
I may have started life in the industry as an outsider, but that is far from the case now. Those initial conferences were frightening, but they pushed me to meet people, and what I discovered was an industry built on community.
Now, when I attend conferences, I look forward to seeing people I genuinely consider friends, not just business contacts. One such friend is Gali Hartuv, CEO and co-founder of WarriorLab. We met at a conference and immediately hit it off. We now host regular monthly webinars about the iGaming industry,
About Sanctuary
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.”
