A betting company pays AU$1m penalty for breaking self-exclusion rules.

[Maslate]

so here's what happened.

Australia has what they call BetStop, it's a national self-exclusion register, so when a gambler registers there that means they want to stop gambling temporarily/permanently. Since it's a national register, it covers licensed Australian online and phone wagering providers, and they have to comply by closing the account and stopping marketing to that person.

However, here's the problem, one betting company named Dabble did not close the accounts of its users, a total of 157, despite them already being registered with BetStop, and that's not all, they were also sending them SMS and emails as part of their marketing, so as a result they were penalized AU$1,069,200.

This for me is a good way to really help minimize gambling addiction as it's coming from the government, and betting companies have to comply because there's a topic before about a user complaining why he could still gamble despite requesting for self-exclusion. Now since that was a user's direct request to the casino, there might be some delay in processing the request, but this one I brought to you is more strict as it's coming from regulators, therefore betting companies really have to comply or they will be penalized.

Do you think this is better than self-exclusion that has to be applied through the casino?

Source: ACMA

[Odohu]

This is possible in Australia because they are one of the countries that have fine laws that protect their citizens from gaming addiction. Their laws did not only cover gambling, even in forex trading, they also have some laws that limit their citizens from addiction. In my country, this is not possible because there is hardly any law that protect the players beause the government are more interested in the revenue they get from the betting companies.

[DanWalker]

Do you think this is better than self-exclusion that has to be applied through the casino?

It certainly seem like very good move. But I don't know how effective it will be in practice.

It seems like one stop solution to me. When any player wants to quit gambling then it may not be wise to send exclusion request to 50 different casino or bookmaker account. This would be disgusting task.

He will register centrally in 1 place and all licensed operator of entire country will be blocked in one click, it is as simple as it is very efficient.

[bakasabo]

BetStop is a solution only for unadvanced gamblers and those who are not familiar with the internet, but it is nice to have the service that does their job and promise to prevent user from gambling. The size of the penalty is ideal. That is a lot of money and that is a "leash" that will force casinos to take it seriously to their self-exclusion feature. I also find huge financial punishment as a great way to deal with gambling addiction and casinos who did not take that problem seriously. What next to be done is to increase register of casinos in this BetStop program, or make it obligatory to have contract with BetStop.

[Charles-Tim]

Do you think this is better than self-exclusion that has to be applied through the casino?

It is still self-exclusion, but just that the gamblers will not apply directly on the gambling sites that they are using to gamble, but they have to apply for it through national self-exclusion register called BetStop which belongs to the government. I know you know this, but it is worth to be clarified.

Yes, I think it is better than self-exclusion that people will have to applied directly on the gambling sites because the government are involved like they take the gamblers self-exclusion seriously.

[CryptSafe]

This is likely the first time I am seeing a country taking such actions against casino they get revenue and tax from. This is discipline at it's peak. I am wondering if other countries would take such step in protecting their citizens from casinos out there to exploit them even after taking up self-exclusion entry.
Iny country you can never see this happening in any way never. My government never bothers as everyone is left to their own gambling fate and not care if the addiction menace is eating deep into the society to take a drastic measures in implementing the self exclusion policy for her citizens to follow and be ready to deal with any casino tat fails to comply with such policies.

[stadus]

This is the reason why casinos do not get licenses in countries that are very strict with their implementation, because they will end up paying huge penalties,and I believe regardless of the size once you commit these violations you still have to pay this much.

With casinos operating under regulators with lax regulations there will be no burden like that they will just stick to the old school normal let the gambler apply for self exclusion and that is. honestly, i dont know why this self exclusion is given a lot of weight, when before we gamble we agree that we are " responsibly gambling", so we should not act like a baby when we get addicted and we blame the casino for our mistake, that does not look like a real gambler at all.

[SatoPrincess]

think this approach is more effective than the individual casino self exclusion that we are used to because this system forces the casinos to close the account. And if they refuse or like in the case you mentioned, try to send promotional emails or texts to the person then they have to answer to the national regulators (betstop). The only limitation I see here is that gamblers can still use casinos registered abroad even after they have registered on betstop.

[acroman08]

Do you think this is better than self-exclusion that has to be applied through the casino?

This is infinitely better than the self-exclusion that we are familiar with. I mean, this would make it easier for gamblers who want to self-exclude from all the casino that they have an account with. Also, the fact that a casino will be penalised if they break the self-exclusion rule makes it a lot better(this part would probably only happen on countries that actually enforce their regulations on casinos).

If you are curious, Portugal also implemented this kind of self-exclusion for licensed online casinos in their country, I posted a thread about it several months ago, if you are interested, you can read it here.

[aioc]

Do you think this is better than self-exclusion that has to be applied through the casino?

It's better and can help bettors to help themselves through that casino feature, and with very high penalties, the casino will strictly observe this rule to avoid being sanctioned.

The Australian gambling regulator is a good model for this, but we never know if other regulators will follow their lead. Casinos are a profit-driven platform; they want you to keep playing until you lose everything.

[Pandu Geddon]

Do you think this is better than self-exclusion that has to be applied through the casino?

What is effective in one country is not necessarily successful in another. The character of gamblers and government supervision related to such regulations is definitely different. But what happens there is something positive. The government really supervises and pays attention to gamblers. So registered casinos will not ignore the rules at will if the government also supervises properly.

[Mr_Brilliant$]

This is applaudable on the government side in enforcement of the law properly. If it was some other areas, I would have said it's normal. But gambling. Nice. It's good that the government stepped in. If the government didn't step in, it will signal to the other betting platforms that the government can't enforce the law it created. Another thing I want to point out is were you said that casinos on their own can't enforce such thing as they themselves want you to actually bet even if you have excluded yourself. What I think is that this is done deliberately by the casinos themselves. No such thing as a delay from them.

[Swordsoffreedom]

I think this will put an end to the casino's tricks and subterfuge. Individual casino always want to retain player. That is why, if you directly request self exclusion from casino, they often prolong the process by citing excuse such as processing delay, technical glitch etc.

I have also seen attempt to retain player by having VIP manager send out tempting bonus offer.

However if government authority stand ready with hammer, at least legal casinos will be compelled to toe the line, fearing million dollar fine like Dabble faced.

[Die_empty]

Do you think this is better than self-exclusion that has to be applied through the casino?

Sometimes casinos don't process self-exclusion requests.  This has led to an increase in gambling addiction. Having a centralized system that handles self-exclusion requests promotes easy monitoring and accountability. BetStop ensures that casinos are held accountable for their inaction.

Gambling platforms would be forced to pay attention to these self-exclusion requests or risk paying high sums as penalties. Some careless staff at these casinos might have contributed to the lack of execution of self-exclusion requests because casinos would not intentionally want to break these rules, considering the amount they might pay in fines.

[YOSHIE]

Do you think this is better than self-exclusion that has to be applied through the casino?

We understand the regulations for online gambling sites, different countries have different regulations that apply to online gambling sites and also for people who are addicted to gambling, in Australia perhaps the regulations are like what is happening now.
However, as far as I know, the case of fines imposed by ACMA on betting sites has already happened to the gambling operator Unibet, the value is the same as AU$1 million, the BetStop operator should understand the risks of regulations implemented by the Australian government regarding national self-blocking, They shouldn't have ignored closing 157 betting accounts, in fact they could have done it, but BetStop allowed them to carry out actions such as sending emails, even though they knew the risk of fines.

Talking about self-exclusion, I think situations like this have no impact on gambling addicts, they actually impact betting sites/fines, those who are addicted will look for other betting sites, which they think are safe regarding regulations and so on.

[Hatchy]

He will register centrally in 1 place and all licensed operator of entire country will be blocked in one click, it is as simple as it is very efficient.

I really thought I was the only one thinking about it this way. If a player suddenly decides to quit gambling completely, how on earth are they supposed to send exclusion requests to every casino? I once thought about something similar regarding self-exclusion. The idea sounds good, but it seems unrealistic in practice. A player could register with a new casino one day and decide to play, so how would that casino know that the person had previously registered on a self-exclusion site?

And even if it is possible to identify them, wouldn't that create an even bigger security risk for the gambler? It would mean having their KYC data and personal information shared across multiple platforms just so they can be identified if they try to bypass their own exclusion.

[Su-asa]

This is possible in Australia because they are one of the countries that have fine laws that protect their citizens from gaming addiction.

This is exactly what's on my mind to say.
However, it would be much better if the authorities in other countries implemented the same rules to protect their citizens; this way, gambling addiction will be reduced to a lower rate.
The honest truth is that this is a good development, and from my point of view, all parties have their roles to play here: the gamblers, the betting platform, and also the authorities working together to help gamblers avoid becoming addicts.
This case literally shows how important such a system is; think of the fact that you want to exclude yourself from gambling for a limited time or forever, and after successfully excluding yourself from the platform, you keep on receiving notifications from them through email and other means; it will be so annoying, and truth be told, most of their promotions might attract you to continue gambling.

[AmaGold70]

so here's what happened.

Australia has what they call BetStop, it's a national self-exclusion register, so when a gambler registers there that means they want to stop gambling temporarily/permanently. Since it's a national register, it covers licensed Australian online and phone wagering providers, and they have to comply by closing the account and stopping marketing to that person.

However, here's the problem, one betting company named Dabble did not close the accounts of its users, a total of 157, despite them already being registered with BetStop, and that's not all, they were also sending them SMS and emails as part of their marketing, so as a result they were penalized AU$1,069,200.

This for me is a good way to really help minimize gambling addiction as it's coming from the government, and betting companies have to comply because there's a topic before about a user complaining why he could still gamble despite requesting for self-exclusion. Now since that was a user's direct request to the casino, there might be some delay in processing the request, but this one I brought to you is more strict as it's coming from regulators, therefore betting companies really have to comply or they will be penalized.

Do you think this is better than self-exclusion that has to be applied through the casino?

Source: ACMA

I think this initiative by the Australian government is the best way to gain self exclusion in gambling. Sometimes when you demand for self exclusion from directly from casino platform, and you are ignored, and maybe still sending you messages that will still make you to start gambling, but in this situation that the Australian government is involved, the betting companies cannot deny sending you messages even after your registration with betstop. I so much like what the Australian government is doing because gambling regulations is really going to a reasonable height. Sometimes, those of us who gamble we get exhausted loosing money to some of these gambling site, and it becomes difficult for some of us to even quit or hold some break, but with self exclusion directly from the government platform, and not from casino gambling addiction, and irresponsibility can be properly managed, and regulated.

[Tetu100]

I think this is more better than the normal self exclusion process since it's being initiated directly from the government in power, and it will help the casino to quickly comply with the order on ground compare to when (the government) weren't involved.

Then again, it depends on the country. If it is a country where the citizens are well valued and respected, anything that will protect their interests and safety will be put into consideration. But I doubt if something like this can ever happen in my country.

[KiaKia]

Let me tell you something, if I am running any online casino business I will never allow any form of self exclusion on my platform, if that's what you want kindly look elsewhere, I am not going to babysit grown ups to manage their money for them, never.

To run a online casino is a lot of work on its own, imagine having to do all this to satisfy a customer who is too childish to control themselves, hell nah, I will never.

I hope the casino has learnt it's lesson, don't start what you can't finish.
Some gamblers can easily take advantage of this, since they are always out of luck all the time and this one needs to luck.