Himalayan Wild

What is Himalayan Wild?

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.

How to play Himalayan Wild

I won’t lie, when I first entered iGaming, I had my concerns. Aspects of the industry felt stuck in a state of stasis. People were making money, and as long as that continued to happen and margins were healthy, why innovate? Just keep doing the same things over and over, with marginal improvements when necessary.

As someone with a naturally curious mind, I found this frustrating. However, in a short period of time, I have seen positive changes. Recent regulatory shifts and an increasingly competitive landscape are pushing companies to innovate, and those unwilling to adapt are being left behind.

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.

What is Himalayan Wild?

For any consumer-facing businesses, a suspension is likely existential and such appears to have been the case here. But wider implications have to be considered before the two sites are binned forever.

The Commission’s intervention followed hot on the heels of the £600,000 regulatory settlement with QuinnBet, announced eight days earlier.

Its findings contained an all-too-familiar combination of ineffective systems, delayed interventions and inadequate source-of-funds controls. One customer placed approximately 4,800 bets in one day and 7,000 the next without being flagged. Another, whose payslips showed monthly earnings of about £2,000, deposited and lost £9,000 in four days.