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

[Renampun]

BetStop is an official service from the Australian government, which means that every casino operating legally in Australian jurisdiction should regularly check whether a user has registered on the platform... If they fail to do so, and the user is already registered on the platform, then it's entirely the platform's fault for not being able to check the user's status.. I think it's pretty clear that it's the casino's mistake because they didn't do their job properly.. and if they get fined for it, then they shouldn't be able to complain.

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

I think this kind of approach is pretty good because users don’t need to apply for self-exclusion from the casino.. but still, there needs to be firmness from the regulator towards the casino.. while some of the cheaper licenses don’t have strictness towards the casinos under them.. so even though a system like this exists, if the regulator isn't strict, casinos can ignore fines with all sorts of excuses.

[Cryptomultiplier]

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.

I understand your point of view because every gambling platform is in it for the money and that's talking about their intended profit and it's even more profitable for them when gamblers get addicted and gamble without control, than it is when they do so with the help self exclusion while they are still considered members of that particular platform.

Why not just delete the accounts of users that don't want to gamble again instead of to self exclude themselves for a while and return after some time or never?

I really don't understand the kind of complications most agencies that are formed aim to benefit because using a separate self exclusion service that's different from the one the gambling platform may offer is just like involving a third party for your own addiction that you can't control, so why not just quit or delete the account?

[danherbias07]

Yes, I think self-exclusion will play an important role in the gambling industry, and it's best to be implemented at every online casino as fast as possible. There's a growing number of gamblers, and they are doing it because there's no stopping them. They are stepping out of line because there's nothing that can stop them. But when given the option to be banned from every online casino in the country, it will somehow lessen the number.

I do wish that the fine that was paid by those who do not follow it will be used for good things. A rehabilitation center is a good start, and funding specialists who would help them get through their problem.

[Gozie51]

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.

Yes you might be talking from the business angle and the way you wish to run a casino if you had one, that is fine but every business has some regulations they have to follow, this starts from registration. If the government has stipulated clauses that should be in business originating from the country, then the company owner's wish may just be wishful thinking and won't come to reality. Except the casino owner decides to run a solo kYC casino which would also be another challenge because it would be seen as illegal casino and the penalty might be grievous.

So in this case, it is a very welcome development that will help gamblers in Australia to curtail their addition habit and those casinos who didn't disable gamblers request deserve to be penalised adequately according to the terms that they might have signed before operation.

[Comeacross]

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

Source: ACMA

How does the flow of this self exclusion works?

I read the post but I couldn't find that information. Does Betstop automatically forward the list of registered users to all licensed casinos in real time? If Betstop notified them at appropriate time but they still failed to comply, then the negligence is from the casino side and they deserve the penalty they've got.

I read that the operators are expected to close accounts as soon as practicable but they didn't state how prompt this communication is done between the Betstop and the casinos. What if the delay was caused by the betstop?

[ZeroVinsonN]

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.

Then maybe they should make those laws, but sadly we both now that won't be happening any time soon, they've yet to even make good security laws, the definitely don't have the time to try and properly regulate gambling.

What Australia has done will be a lesson to every other casino operators out there that are operating active casinos in the country, those guys were probably still gambling on those accounts and the casino didn't want to lose the money, but after paying this fine, they and other casinos will think twice before trying to ignore national regulations.
This will probably only work on casinos with KYC though, otherwise I don't see how they can connect an account to a person, self excluded or not.

[Perfectbaby]

To be frank this is what that is good for users and gambling sites.
When a user registered there and they happened not closing the site as easily requested they could be penalized for not effecting the self-exclusion immediately. With this, those gambling site that has refused to always effects the rule would at least think double before doing whatever they wishes to do. At first, before this could likely happened to others they must own a operational license from that specific country because this can't actually happened with other site that is not operating under their jurisdiction and laws.

[Crypto Library]

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

Source: ACMA

Honestly, I would consider it better because the current situation is such that most casinos promote features like self-exclusion for positive marketing. But in many cases, it is seen that the self-exclusion is not actually executed properly, rather it is seen that the gambler can gamble again, so it is just an eyewash policy for them which brings more revenue in their pockets along with positive marketing.
Even if we say something about in some cases the self exclusion is really working if still you will find many of those casino, Sending promotional messages or emails to people who are self-excluded. Which can also lead a gambler to gambling again even the active the self exclusion feature. So I think this kinds of penalties good make the positive changes on those casinos.

[X-ray]

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

It's a better thing than doing self-exclusion in the casino itself. The main point is it's covering all of gambling sites registered in AU, which is helping gamblers to save a lot of their times when they registered themselves in so many gambling sites.

So this all in one self exclusion is far effective than you do it by yourself. At least it's showing how country is also caring to its residents though they allowed gambling to operated legally there.

[suzanne5223]

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

Yes, this is better since it has government initiative backing, and it will be easy for gamblers to get the justice they need from online gambling platforms that failed to take the right step to block gamblers who requested self-exclusion from all online and phone gambling providers.
Another big advantage I see about BetStop is the simplicity and its wide coverage; one registration blocks a gambler across all licensed Australian bookmakers at once, and the gambling operators are legally forced to check the register and stop every form of marketing.  When a gambling operator still ignores it, like Dabble, there's a penalty to show the regulator is actually enforcing their rules instead of just having rules on paper.

[Asiska02]

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

Source: ACMA

This is a very good move and I think self-exclusion will work better for gamblers with government intervention like this. With the amount being paid to this guy, other gambling companies will not try and do the same and will be more cautious of sending mails or other adverts to a person who already registered for self-exclusion through this Betshop.

For developed countries like this that takes law very seriously, this will be effected more than other countries who don’t really care about the emotional condition/distress of their citizens as a result of gambling addiction. Gambling addiction revival is a collective effort especially of the government because it one way or the other affects everyone.

[Antotena]

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

Yes, this is better since it has government initiative backing, and it will be easy for gamblers to get the justice they need from online gambling platforms that failed to take the right step to block gamblers who requested self-exclusion from all online and phone gambling providers.
Another big advantage I see about BetStop is the simplicity and its wide coverage; one registration blocks a gambler across all licensed Australian bookmakers at once, and the gambling operators are legally forced to check the register and stop every form of marketing.  When a gambling operator still ignores it, like Dabble, there's a penalty to show the regulator is actually enforcing their rules instead of just having rules on paper.

I don't know why I find this funny or maybe these are just license companies that are following rules decided to signed this deal. I don't think am offshore company will want to sign this kind of deal because apart from paying a fine if you didn't block people that ask to be blocked, this is going to be a campaign against casino companies and it will seriously discourage people from gambling, most companies will do the same, let's not blame Dabble.got not blocking the people.

This initiative make sense but for addicted gamblers. However, how many addicted gambler will want to admit and use these option to stay away from gambling. Maybe the government should find a way to fine not just company but the users too that engage in gambling when they are asked to be stop.

No matter how you look at this from different perspective, it will never make any sense. It's like saying any company that serve someone bear even after saying don't serve me will be fine.

[OgNasty]

I really don't like this trend of looking for someone else to blame for your own actions.  Insane that a company could get a $1M penalty for allowing someone to use their service.  If you are old enough to gamble, you are old enough to have some personal responsibility.  I am really concerned that there is a segment of society that looks at lawsuits like they are a legitimate option when you've completely destroyed your own finances with a dumb decision. 

Some people want to act dumb and expect to be saved rather than taking personal accountability.

[Doan9269]

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.

How I wish I'm the Gambler that experience this suit there platform, there are some mistakes that are costly, we cannot also establish the fact that this wasn't an inside that work being planned together, but to be honest, it is also disappointing to discover that the purpose for self-exclusion could not be achieved despite following the due procedures under the regulated authority, while the money placed as fine is also too much on the casino and I don't think they may be able to afford such as sanction.

[Son Of Blockchain (SOB)]

 It's shows that some of these casinos don't care about you or your mental health but their business they'll be advising gamblers to do it responsibly but can't help the ones who couldn't keep up with doing it responsibly and ended up becoming addicts, tell me why that casino would purposely refused closing accounts of customers to willingly self excluded if not for their selfish interest.
 Which means that they want more customers to get addicted and keep losing. Sending people who self excluded mails or texts as a reminder to lure them back to gambling is greed from their ends.

[Davidvictorson]

~…~

This is good and many other countries should have this. It goes a very long way in curbing and controlling gambling addiction.
I wonder what the government does with the fine after it has been paid.
Do they put it into gambling safe and aware initiatives to help people struggling with gambling addiction with free treatment or into policy matters or what? Just curious.

[Cryptoprincess101]

I like the BetStop idea as it will help a lot of gamblers to cool off from gambling for a while or permanently. It is good that this BetStop was introduced by the Australian government and it cuts across all gambling sites. At least other gambling company will take precautions since one of them has already been find for violating the BetStop order. A gambling addict will continue being an addict but that doesn't mean that they can't have a change of mind to stop. It will help reduce gambling addiction since everyone is free to do a self exclusion.

[CryptoBuds]

I read that the operators are expected to close accounts as soon as practicable but they didn't state how prompt this communication is done between the Betstop and the casinos. What if the delay was caused by the betstop?

Good question!

However in the case of Double, problem was not just about account closing on net basis.

ACMA's investigation revealed that they had not closed 157 account at all. Instead they sent over 2k+ push notification and promotional message to 45 BetStop registered user!

BetStop API is supposed to ensure real time synchronization. If operator continue to send automated marketing push without syncing their internal system then blame lies entirely with operator. Sending marketing material to self excluded player by blaming system glitch or delay is terrible idea, LMAO.

[Oshosondy]

Which means that they want more customers to get addicted and keep losing. Sending people who self excluded mails or texts as a reminder to lure them back to gambling is greed from their ends.

I think it could be negligence. Like nothing will happen until they are thought a lesson and which has happened. No gambling site in the country will not take BetStop seriously anymore as one of them has been fined 1 million Australian dollar.

There has been several cases like this. And also the gambling site might close the person's account, but continue to send the person emails that the person will see tempting. Some people are complaining about this.

[Hispo]

so here's what happened.

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

Source: ACMA

Actually, that sounds like a very good system.
I think it is even better than manually applying for self-exclusion manually on each one of the casinos we use.
Also, there is the issue of the fine, it is the only way businesses usually feel the pitch and start to obey regulation on their countries.

I would love if my country also had some national self-exclusion registry for gamblers with addiction problems to apply and make it more difficult for them to relapse and also exclude them from gambling advertising.

In the end, if someone exclude themselves from a casino, with no national registry, they can always continue to gamble in a completely different casino with similar games.