Save The Princess

What is Save The Princess?

The report also revealed that Evolution had ignored virtual currency risks, as they had accepted wagers in said currency without triggering the enhanced due diligence normally expected in such cases.

Moreover, Evolution had continued earning revenue from operators in so-called grey markets without enforcing contractual blocks or other remedial measures despite earlier allegations.

Last month the UK Gambling Commission agreed a regulatory settlement with Evolution of £4.75 million, after finding its games had been accessible via a handful of unlicensed operators in the UK.

About Save The Princess

This required operators to subject players to rigorous checks before signing up new VIPs, including having their betting behaviour being closely monitored. 

Operators were also banned from incentivising customers based on losses, and reward programmes must be overseen by senior management. The code restricts any player under the age of 25 from taking part. 

According to a GC report from 2025, the number of VIP customers in the market had dropped by 95% per operator since the strengthening of restrictions. 

How to play Save The Princess

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.”