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

[Patikno]

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.

I completely agree with your opinion. The solution offered by BetStop is excellent for dealing with irresponsible gamblers or those who lack self-control. Furthermore, this service can be very convenient for gamblers who want to stop their gambling activity, either temporarily, or permanently. This eliminates the need to close all accounts at various casinos, and it also strengthens the resolve of those who truly want to quit. Without this solution, they might abandon their intention to quit.

So, this service is very efficient, and their rules are also fair. I think other countries should do the same, instead of blocking gambling sites; which is pointless, since people can still access them in anyway.

[Orpichukwu]

I love this; it’s better than self-exclusion, which I don’t consider to be working at all since the player can still create a new account and start gambling, or the casino can ignore their request. The fine is okay, but I could have considered it better if they were to pay some of those penalties' money to the gambler who was affected and not just all the money going directly to the government because it was the right of the player, which was also trampled upon.

[robelneo]

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.

That's true when the government gets into the picture, and the online casinos are dedicated to local gamblers, there's nothing they can do but comply, or else they will be restricted or they will order the casino to cease operation

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.

Our country can do this kind of regulation, but I doubt if it can fine casinos; they will only give them warnings because our government is casino-friendly, and they will implement this rule to make it look like the government is taking care of gamblers' welfare.

[Miles2006]

If I am not mistaking, I don’t remember sharing my opinion in the other thread, some casinos do program marketing ads. The programming method includes everyone receiving a message reminding them about the casino and severally I experienced this from casinos I once played games.
The case of a self excluded gamblers is different, their decision should be respected otherwise sending messages will paint a bad picture for several casinos with good intentions, negative thoughts like the casino wants to take advantage one inability to control gambling habit. The reason why this pattern is implemented is because self exclusion is no longer helpful, I saw a post stating how self exclusion option is no longer considered best because anyone can choose the self exclusion for a site only obviously on self exclusion one can still make use of other gambling site though it depends.

[retreat]

It happens when you have a strict and credible regulator, so that any action taken by a casino that harms the users will be dealt with fairly. But I don't think regulators like Anjouan or Curacao would really care about the problems faced by gamblers. In the end, they would just put full responsibility on the casino itself, and let the issue be resolved between both parties. But I think this system is quite good, but it all comes back to the regulator as the party that ensures that casinos are actually held accountable when they fail to carry out their responsibilities.

[shinratensei_]

Theorically there are more than 100 licensed casino operated in AU, yet the regulator can even know which casino that is violating their rules, then they fined them. Is not it showing how effective their system is? Making self exclusion to be concentrated in a one fully controlled site is helping them to track, which casino that is complying with them easily. So it's unlike the ordinary self exclusion system whereas they can still let you enter the casino and gambling with the consequence you lose your money, but you will never able to win the prize due to your name in their self exclusion list.

But there was a time when Betstop was not working especially in Albanese goverment, and it's due to the casino itself was able to lobbying the politician in that territory. So this is the only loophole, but it's hardly to get passed unless casino itself have strong connection to the people inside the government itself.

[Hispo]

I understand the personal responsibility view, but self-exclusion is there for people trying to stop before things get worse. If a company is licensed, following BetStop rules seems like a fair trade-off, not babysitting.

It is not babysitting, in any way shape or form.
Actually, it is a very adult thing to do to recognize our limits and ask to be self-excluded from casinos when we recognize there is something wrong with our habits on casinos and bookies.

There is personal freedom and part of the personal freedom comes with the right to be left alone by casinos and other gambling service providers.
There are people who simply don't have as much self-control as others, who actually do have it and can stop at any time, whenever they want.

I personally believe there is nothing wrong with asking to get excluded from casinos if one happen to be losing control over oneself.

[Questat]

I personally believe there is nothing wrong with asking to get excluded from casinos if one happen to be losing control over oneself.

That's correct but you also have to be careful with how many months you want yourself self-excluded because if you are so upset that you lost you might be carried away by your emotions and you might end up putting self-exclusion for a year. That one might result in regret because the moment you activate that there's no coming back, you'll have to wait until it expires before you can gamble again.

[Botnake]

I love this; it’s better than self-exclusion, which I don’t consider to be working at all since the player can still create a new account and start gambling, or the casino can ignore their request. The fine is okay, but I could have considered it better if they were to pay some of those penalties' money to the gambler who was affected and not just all the money going directly to the government because it was the right of the player, which was also trampled upon.

But did you know that this self exclusion only covers the casinos regulated in the country? 

Because it does not say anything about the current status/. I mean many gamblers now are just using overseas casinos to gamble as there's less restriction there, so this BetStop app would not stop them. And maybe some casinos would not get licensed by them knowing how big a penalty will be imposed if they fail to monitor , i think even if not deliberate, non-compliance still gets a big penalty.

[LogitechMouse]

---so as a result they were penalized AU$1,069,200.
Do you think this is better than self-exclusion that has to be applied through the casino?

Source: ACMA

Well, it's good that Australia has a company/platform that's focusing on "self-exclusions of these gamblers", and they're penalizing those who aren't following the rules.

TBH, with how rampant gambling advertisements already is, it already came to a point where self-exclusion isn't that helpful that much anymore. I mean you can self-exclude yourself from that gambling website, but if you still see gambling advertisements of a different company and you still have that "urge" to gamble again then it's pretty much useless. Also, am I the only one who believes that self-exclusion isn't helpful if you still have that feeling of you wanting to gamble yet again.

At the end of the day, it's all about discipline of each and every gambler. I'm not against self-exclusion don't get me wrong, but I don't see it benefitting the majority of the gamblers especially if they have that "urge" like what I said. Addicted gamblers will always find a way to gamble, and gambling companies will always find a way to approach them as well.

[yhiaali3]

Of course, this is a thousand times better than the self-exclusion that is implemented through the casino. I really liked the idea as it is done through a national register by the government, and therefore this forces all companies to comply.

I remember reading many complaints here in the forum regarding the self-exclusion service and how most casinos violate this service, which is one of the main terms of service, and yet they do not abide by their own rules.

[Natalim]

Of course, this is a thousand times better than the self-exclusion that is implemented through the casino. I really liked the idea as it is done through a national register by the government, and therefore this forces all companies to comply.

I remember reading many complaints here in the forum regarding the self-exclusion service and how most casinos violate this service, which is one of the main terms of service, and yet they do not abide by their own rules.

But the question is, are you using a casino that is registered in your country?

I'm sure we are all aware here that many of the casinos listed here that are popular and active do not have licenses in our country and yet we are still using them, so if our country has that so-called "BetStop" version we would still not be able to use it if the casino we are using is not regulated within our country.

[Darker45]

It's not about which one is better. If this is for the good of gamblers, both could be implemented. I mean, there isn't a need to choose only one.

The good thing with requesting directly from the casino is that it could take effect immediately. But the national self-exclusion register is also great in that it enforces the decision to all casinos and other betting sites.

I fully agree with the decision of the government agency that fined the betting company. I even think those gamblers who were still provided access to the casinos despite their self-exclusion request should get back all their losses for the entire time since they made the request.

[eisen33]

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 was a mistake on the part of this particular casino. The problem was probably that their mailing system sends marketing messages to absolutely everyone who registers with them. Of course they should have excluded players from those marketing campaigns as soon as they submitted a self-exclusion request. I don’t think the fine is necessarily that significant for the casino, but hopefully it will make them more careful about these kinds of details in the future.

[davis196]

Having a national self-exclusion system is better than just relying on the casinos/bookies to impose their own self-exclusion systems and rules.
However, the Australian self-exclusion system cannot be imposed on a global scale, since many casinos(especially crypto casinos) have gambling licenses in jurisdictions, that have pretty liberal rules and regulations. I'm pretty sure that most crypto casinos simply do not operate in Australia. The problem with self-exclusion systems lacking speed and effectiveness would most likely remain unresolved.

[Yablee0]

I fully agree with the decision of the government agency that fined the betting company.

Yes that's true. It's a nice initiative from the government that will serve as a  strong deterrent to the affected casinos and also make the others to seat up and learn to value human safety. That was a great move, Just hope other countries learn from this.

I even think those gamblers who were still provided access to the casinos despite their self-exclusion request should get back all their losses for the entire time since they made the request.

It would be a nice idea also, but I doubt if they will comply with it since they've already spend a lot already. Perhaps, if only the government pay more attention to that angle who are they to say no.

[swogerino]

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.

Australia is on top list of the countries who gamble more than other ones and addiction is common happening to people there. It is nice to see that they have a national state owned platform where to rely in order to help themselves get out of the addiction. This is badly needed I think also in other countries too while people continue to suffer. As for the fine paid it is a well deserved one if someome has the guts to not comply with national laws of the country where they operate.

[m2017]

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.

This system seems convenient: a gambler doesn't need to self-exclude from each casino individually. If there is a gambling ban, it applies to all casinos.

However, a loophole remains in the form of online casinos not registered in Australia, where a gambler subject to a local ban can continue playing just as before.

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,

Were these 157 accounts "dormant", or did these gamblers continue playing at the Dabble casino during the period they were banned from 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 looks like negligence on the part of a casino employee who forgot to block these accounts. AU$1,069,200? Not a bad sum. Casinos will undoubtedly be more vigilant now regarding accounts banned on BetStop. This event will also serve as a lesson for other casinos.

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

This is better for the gambler because a gambling ban is enforced across all casinos via a unified registration system, and the regulator oversees the casino's compliance with these requirements. This compels casinos to be more diligent about blocking accounts, as the threat of fines makes it impossible for them to simply ignore the rules. In essence, a stable "gambler–regulator–casino" triangle of interaction emerges where, provided the conditions are met, everyone achieves their desired outcome. The gambler gets their account blocked across all platforms and gains "control" over their gambling addiction; the regulator gains "healthy" citizens along with tax revenue and fines from the casinos. And the casino... well, what does the casino get? It loses gamblers, faces the threat of hefty fines, and incurs the extra workload of ensuring compliance and monitoring the users who must be added to the blocklist.

[Oasisman]

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

Absolutely yes. This way the user will not be able to place a bet on any platform under the Australian jurisdiction. They may be able to bet offshore, but at least their options have been reduced to that.
As for the penalty, I guess that's a better way of implementing a strict policy so that casinos and all betting platform will take this regulation seriously.

I live in a country where most people are heavily hooked up with online gambling, that each and every local vlogger/influencers are promoting various kind of unregistered and unlicensed online casinos. This right here should be a good example to avoid worsening the situation.

[Cointxz]

Having a national self-exclusion system is better than just relying on the casinos/bookies to impose their own self-exclusion systems and rules.
However, the Australian self-exclusion system cannot be imposed on a global scale, since many casinos(especially crypto casinos) have gambling licenses in jurisdictions, that have pretty liberal rules and regulations. I'm pretty sure that most crypto casinos simply do not operate in Australia. The problem with self-exclusion systems lacking speed and effectiveness would most likely remain unresolved.

This is actually my concern too when I read the OP and relate it to the crypto casino that usually have Curacao and Anjouan license.

I doubt that this license provider can manage to regulate even the self exclusion of players since they are limited only to their country jurisdiction.

This is possible if online casino will have a localized compliance on every country that will create self exclusion regulator.