for early access to the latest igaming videos!
and get the latest igaming news first!
The national gambling self-exclusion register in Australia serves as a crucial barrier for individuals attempting to abstain from betting. But recent regulatory findings suggest that, in practice, the system hasn’t always worked as intended.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has identified six licensed wagering providers that breached rules linked to the National Self-Exclusion Register, BetStop. The companies named were Tabcorp, LightningBet, Betfocus, TempleBet, Picklebet and BetChamps, with all of the conduct occurring during 2024.
Self-excluded — but still able to gamble
ACMA’s investigations found that people who had formally opted out of online and telephone betting were still able to interact with gambling services. In some cases, this meant opening new wagering accounts. In others, self-excluded individuals were able to access betting products or were sent marketing material they should never have received.
While the specific failures varied between operators, the underlying issue was the same: systems that were supposed to block self-excluded customers did not do so reliably. For a safeguard that depends entirely on automation and internal controls, those gaps proved significant.
Rules that are no longer new
One of the more uncomfortable aspects for the industry is timing. The self-exclusion rules have been in force for more than two years, meaning these breaches cannot easily be brushed off as teething problems or regulatory growing pains.
ACMA’s findings point to weaknesses in how operators implemented and monitored their compliance processes. In several cases, companies failed to properly identify self-excluded individuals or ensure that their technology continued to function correctly after initial account checks were completed.
A mixed bag of regulatory responses
Rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach, ACMA applied different enforcement measures depending on the circumstances of each breach.
Betfocus, LightningBet and TempleBet were issued remedial directions, which legally require them to commission independent audits of their systems and fix any problems uncovered. Ignoring these directions is itself an offence and can lead to civil penalties.
Tabcorp faced a financial sanction, paying AU$112,680, and entered into a court-enforceable undertaking. This obliges the company to review its customer verification processes through a third party and improve staff training around self-exclusion obligations. If the undertaking is breached, the matter can be taken to the Federal Court.
BetChamps received a formal warning, while ACMA has confirmed that enforcement action against Picklebet is still being finalised.
What this means for consumer protection
Taken together, the cases highlight a familiar tension in online gambling regulation. Self-exclusion schemes are often presented as a cornerstone of harm minimisation, but their effectiveness depends entirely on how seriously operators treat them behind the scenes.
ACMA has made it clear that compliance remains under active scrutiny. For wagering providers, the message is becoming harder to ignore: self-exclusion is not a procedural checkbox, but a system people rely on when they are trying to stop gambling. When that system fails, the consequences extend well beyond regulatory penalties.
Source: asgam.com
