Browse articles by topic

Miomni secures injunction against software supplier Enterg


Sports betting software provider Miomni Gaming has secured an injunction against Enterg Software Solutions, trading as Entergaming, a Cyprus-based business that provided it with technology used to power a US sports betting platform. 

Miomni’s injunction, granted by Judge David Edwards QC of the UK High Court of Justice’s Business and Property Court, orders Enterg to inform the supplier of any so-called “kill switch” integrated into its software platform, according to court documents.

This refers to any code within the platform that may allow it to be automatically deactivated, through timed events, remote activation or by any other means.

Enterg must provide Miomni with written confirmation of the dates at which any such kill switch was inserted into the platform, as well as the means to disable this functionality.

The judge has given Enterg until June 3 to comply with the order. Should it fail to do so its shareholders may be held in contempt of court and face fines or imprisonment, or have assets seized.

Enterg was not represented in court when the judgement was handed down.

According to sources close to the case, the injunction was granted after Judge Edwards was satisfied that a contract for Miomni to license software from Enterg was valid.

iGB North America understands that the software in question is a transactional tool used as part of the sportsbook platform’s pricing component.

This platform went on to be used as part of Miomni’s joint venture with Delaware North to launch a BetLucky-branded sportsbook offering in the West Virginia market.

However the platform was later shut down as a result of a dispute between Miomni and Enterg, going offline in March. Delaware North has since filed a lawsuit against its former partner, accusing it of misleading it over its ownership of certain technology in the underlying platform.

Miomni, based in Brighton, UK, is disputing these claims. iGB North America has been informed that the injunction granted by the court had been pursued as the first step in proving that it in fact held all legal rights to the software in question.