Lady Joker

How to play Lady Joker

BGaming has released Johnny vs Chicken, a slot that pulls two recurring characters out of separate franchises and stages a head-to-head between them. The Johnny Cash character, from titles including Johnny Cash Train Heist and Johnny Cash Gold Rush, draws pistols with the lead sheriff from Chicken Rush.

The news here isn’t really about a single Wild West slot. It’s about how BGaming is treating its existing intellectual property. Rather than launching another standalone theme, the studio is connecting characters that already carry their own player recognition, a crossover approach more common to entertainment franchises than to slot catalogs.

The game arrived on September 15, 2026, and forms part of BGaming’s Entertainment line.

About Lady Joker

Despite these measures, the ASA found that the character’s age was not credibly verified. The prompts used to generate the AI image did not explicitly require the character to appear aged 25 or over. Without an independent verification process, the regulator determined the character still “seemed to be under 25”.

The ASA’s ruling directed both Dribble Media and Limay Media to ensure the offending advertisement would not be redisplayed in the same form.

This is Midnite’s third ASA ruling this year. Last month, the operator came under scrutiny for an ad that suggested that “gambling was an escape from personal problems”. The ASA received 125 complaints on the offending ad and the company was ordered to remove the advertisement. 

About Lady Joker

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.”