Cat Queen

How to play Cat Queen

Funds held in customer accounts also declined sharply. Operators held £886.6 million ($1.19 billion), down 13.9% from the same point a year earlier.

Retail betting diverged significantly from the wider market, with non-remote betting GGY falling 3.3% to £2.4 billion ($3.2 billion). The number of betting shops dropped for a 12th consecutive reporting period to 5,617 premises—a 3.6% annual decline (down 208 shops from March 2025).

Other retail sectors performed better. Bingo GGY increased 8.2% to £703.8 million ($941.8 million), while arcade GGY rose 10.7% to £800.1 million ($1.07 billion).

What is Cat Queen?

The remote gaming duty hike from 21% to 40% in April is also expected to have a significant impact on the black market, with Regulus estimating it could drive the market to be worth up to €1 billion, as consumers choose illegal offerings to access unrestricted bonuses.

Other studies have made similar estimations. In June last year two thirds of bettors surveyed by YouGov said the tax increase, which will also hit online sports betting from next year, would drive them to play with unlicensed operators.

The UK has historically maintained a high channelisation rate due to it being particuarly mature with a huge competitive offering. According to the report, up to 1,491 licensed sites provides sufficient choice for engaged players.

About Cat Queen

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.