Global Gaming transfers Ninja Casino domain for Swedish relaunch

Global Gaming has extended its cooperation with Finnplay Group, after it transferred the Ninja Casino domain to Viral Interactive.

Lauded as “a step forward in the cooperation,” the official transferring of to Viral Interactive comes after Global Gaming had licences for commercial online gambling and betting revoked by regulator the Spelinspektionen.

Viral Interactive, the holder of a licence for commercial online gambling issued by the Swedish Gambling Authority, has also filed an application with SGA, seeking to add to the list of domains covered by their current licence. 

As licensee, Viral Interactive obtains full responsibility for the operation and compliance of all domains under its licence.

This represents the latest move in the ongoing collaboration, which has seen the launch of new gaming site NanoCasino on the market.

Global Gaming acts as a marketing partner to Viral Interactive and will continue to provide support in terms of resources and expertise in marketing, customer experience and branding for both and

Tobias Fagerlund, Global Gaming CEO, commented: “We are, of course, aware of Ninja Casino’s enormous value in the Swedish market and it should come as no surprise that we do not want to let its potential go to waste.

“It is my belief that is in safe hands with Viral Interactive and Finnplay’s provenly safe and responsible platform, which also places a great deal of emphasis on entertainment and the pleasure of gaming.”

Earlier this year Global Gaming’s wholly owned subsidiary SafeEnt, which counted igaming entity Ninja Casino alongside as part of its stable, had licences revoked by Sweden’s regulator.

Stating that it had discovered “serious deficiencies” in the company’s operations, and that it had violated key provisions of the gaming law, one particular example highlighted that customers had been able to spend large amounts of money without a reaction to duty of care requirements.

Global Gaming has continually vowed to fight the revocation and has seen three appeals, to the Administrative Court, Administrative Court’s Chamber of Appeal and Supreme Administrative Court, requesting that the decision should not apply while a final judgement is still being sought, rejected.