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

[Ishicryptic]

This shows that Australia, is a country that truly cares about the concerns of gambling addiction in their country and if a casino breaks the law that they put in place to protect gambling addiction such casino will face the penalty which is what we're seeing with this penalized casino. This is something that countries that are banning online casinos should have emulated, instead of putting a total ban on gambling they can regulate the sector like Australia, to minimize addiction because if you ban casinos in your country desperate gamblers will find alternatives to bypass the ban.

[JiiBs]

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.

It’s a good step towards tackling the issue with gambling and addiction obviously. One that would fair more better than an outright ban as that would even make gambling a lot more expensive and go under.

This way, the state gets to win too from these penalties.

For Dabble though, I wonder if they haven’t got their hands on data from the registry and I highly doubt that. Being registered with Betstop should mean they’ve got a line of communication to that effect.
In such situations, Casinos should have a dedicated support that critical evaluates and puts into effect data from such section and they would do just fine.

Have an automated system that dictates users with accounts on their site from BetStop data.

[Free Market Capitalist]

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.

...

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

Well, that’s nothing new. The first national self-exclusion registries were for land-based casinos. Then, with the rise of online gambling, the problem arose that it wasn’t regulated at first, many casinos didn’t offer self-exclusion, and so on.

In this case, I do think it’s better to have a regulatory body that oversees these self-exclusions at the national level, and if they could be coordinated internationally in the future, so much the better. Someone who’s addicted can self-exclude, but in a compulsive act, they’ll end up finding some offshore casino that lets them gamble.

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.

The thing is, I don't know exactly how it works in Australia, but if it's like in Europe, it's illegal to gamble at those casinos from Australia, just as it's illegal for those casinos to offer their services to Australians. What happens is that sometimes they include it in the Terms of Service and turn a blind eye as long as the customer keeps losing the money they deposited.

[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.

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.

According to what I learned about the BetStop service, only licensed Australian online and phone wagering providers are covered, so offshore and international casino sites are outside BetStop.
I dont blame the Dabble platform, but i believe they already know what they get themselves into, so it's either they purposely break the rules maybe the gamblers are high rollers.

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.

It is not all addicted gamblers will use the option to exclude themselves from gambling. It is only those who are willing to help themselves or already seeking help, but find it hard for them to control their gambling desire, which is why i believe the idea of the penalty for gambling platforms was introduced by BetStop.
From my understanding, it makes sense if the gambling platforms are only penalized through fines.

[bakasabo]

This shows that Australia, is a country that truly cares about the concerns of gambling addiction in their country and if a casino breaks the law that they put in place to protect gambling addiction such casino will face the penalty which is what we're seeing with this penalized casino. This is something that countries that are banning online casinos should have emulated, instead of putting a total ban on gambling they can regulate the sector like Australia, to minimize addiction because if you ban casinos in your country desperate gamblers will find alternatives to bypass the ban.

Australian example has only 1 disadvantage - their method works only for local casinos. It helps only part of citizens, who gamble in local casinos. Gives no effect to those who gamble in foreign casinos and totally to those who gamble in crypto casinos. This is Australia's second large attempt to fight gambling addiction, as previously they offered to monitor and control gamblers bank accounts and limit deposits.

[Comeacross]

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.

Frankly speaking, this is my view as well but it'll sound as if we are siding with gambling platforms.

Personally, I believe in personal responsibility instead of shifting our responsibility to gambling platforms. Although this is a different case since the platform was the one that keep sending promotional messages to them after their self exclusion from Betstop but we have also seen cases where gamblers requests for self exclusion but still end up attempting to play from that same platform and if things get rough they'll end up blaming the platform.

I'm not in support of the gambling platforms but to some extent we should hold ourselves responsible for our lack of control.

[Yorubek]

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.

Yes, this will undoubtedly help Australian gambler to protect themselves from gambling addiction or from big losses. The Australia government has instructed betting companies to comply with this law, if any betting company does not comply with this rule or law, there is a strict punishment for them, as a punishment, the betting company will have to pay a huge amount of money, so betting companies are obliged to follow this rule correctly. By enacting this law, Australian gambler will play a big role in protecting themselves from gambling addiction.

[KTChampions]

~
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 am opposed to intrusive advertising - especially when a company obtains data from third parties and annoys people with spam, in such cases, fines are entirely justified, and I support the actions of law enforcement.
However, the idea of ​​imposing an obligation on a company to monitor how people adhere to their own self-imposed restrictions strikes me as absurd. If someone doesn't want to do something, they shouldn't do it, there is no need to annoy other people or businesses with one's problems. Ultimately, I believe that if a person cannot control their own behavior, they should be declared legally incapacitated and assigned a guardian.

[Jubilee58]

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.

I think it is a good thing for a country to protect the interest of their citizens rather than making money to the detriment of their citizens. It is very interesting when the decision of a gambler is being respected. There are reasons why people go on self exclusion when it comes to gambling. Some of us would have been fully controlled in the way we gamble if their is such law in our own countries, but because their is no such system established we keep battling with gambling addiction. The Australian government has done well making sure gambling addiction is being controlled, and if they have also extended this benefit to other areas that is also a big plus for the citizens. Now penalizing a company for bridging the request of a gambler on self exclusion is welcomed otherwise other gambling company will also continue in such act. Gambling addiction is one thing that is waying many gamblers down because they are unable to have full control, and the government have no interest to help such vulnerable person out. Other countries should also imitate this system from Australian government because of gambling addiction persist it could lead to some negative impact on the person, and as well as the country itself.

[L E G E N D A R Y]

This shows that Australia, is a country that truly cares about the concerns of gambling addiction in their country and if a casino breaks the law that they put in place to protect gambling addiction such casino will face the penalty which is what we're seeing with this penalized casino. This is something that countries that are banning online casinos should have emulated, instead of putting a total ban on gambling they can regulate the sector like Australia, to minimize addiction because if you ban casinos in your country desperate gamblers will find alternatives to bypass the ban.

This is basically someone who saw an opportunity to exploit a casino big time and took the chance. It’s not even about a country being really concerned about the concern of gambling addiction in their country as you think, it’s just a normal case of breaching of contract, and it can obviously happen anywhere and to anyone in the world. When a casino or any establishment breaches their contract or agreement with an individual, whether it’s self exclusion or any other breach, the individual has the right to take legal action against such platform.

[Mrbluntzy]

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

To apply for self exclusions just on the casino is meaningless, I hold that opinion because if you use the casino self exclusion service, they may lock your account for the period of time that you choose to stay off gambling but you can always create another account and still continue gambling with it without being detected.

 Even this "Betstop service" can also have the same loophole as that of casino exclusion. Someone could register on the service but when the urge for gambling arises again, they will use someone else's details, maybe their friend's details to create an account on the casino and still continue gambling.

To stop gambling depends on the person's self decision and determination, if they don't mean to stop, even the self exclusion service can not prevent them from gambling as long as they have friends, relatives, siblings that they can ask to use their details to sign up a new account on the casino.

[Sim_card]

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

Source: ACMA

I feel this is the best way for a sincere gambler who wants to go on self exclusion and not the gambler that's only deceiving himself that he wants to be on self exclusion but cannot control himself and would still go register in a different casino and continue gambling. Some casinos have failed in their responsibility to take note of these gamblers account on self exclusion and stop sending them gambling messages and some won't even put the gambler account on self exclusion.

 This is because they're after making money and care less about their customers well being. BetShop is a third party to look into the affairs of account that are on self exclusion to prevent further gambling activities from these gamblers. It's good because it helps the gambler achieve his goal.

[Sonia_123]

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

Nice one for this they will stick to the rules and regulations of the country, if such penalty was nor carried out another casino might also be involved in such act which will now be a normal to be breaking rules and regulations of the government .

Maybe because of the money that the casinos are making from these particular customers that is why the refused to close the account of those gamblers that requested for self-exclusion.
A country that lacks discipline will not be able to control it's citizens , Simple obedience is better than sacrifice.

[coin-investor]

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.

I thought you were someone coming from our country. We have the same situation. My country is pro-casinos; in fact, they run offline casinos and some online casinos, which is why so many of their rulings favor the casinos, even though those rulings were obviously wrong.

I don't think the same applies to my country; they don't want to fine casinos because they contribute to our nation's coffers, and they don't want to see casinos go bankrupt.

[Obari]

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

Most times, I just think if something isn't done by the government even when it was supposed to then, it is simply the government ignoring it and I said this because, I am sure that, the government knows how best to stop the things they don't like and just like the case with when they were fighting bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general.
I also like the fact that, the Australia government have take these precautionary measures seriously and I'm sure with penalties like these, other gambling site wouldn't want to fall victim of things like this.

I also think this is better than self exclusion because with self exclusion, one can easily go back to gambling even without the next person knowing.

[fullfitlarry]

Most likely one of this news that are good to hear as the betting company was found at fault here and obviously should be fine. Not just with a small amount but in millions in Australian dollar.

And it just shows that laws can be implemented, regardless of how big the penalty is or what gambling sites are involved. As compare to most stories that we heard that nothing had happened if some gambling sites were found at fault with the self-exclusion rules.

[Julien_Olynpic]

The national self-exclusion registry is certainly a clever solution. I hadn't heard of it before. I know that in other countries, self-exclusion only applies to specific casinos. If a player is excluded from just one specific casino or several, they can start playing at others where they haven't already self-excluded. But there are many casinos, and you can't self-exclude at all of them. Incidentally, while this solution is good, it's not perfect. After all, a player can travel to another country or simply register at a casino in another jurisdiction and play there—for example, in New Zealand or the US.

[Maslate]

The national self-exclusion registry is certainly a clever solution. I hadn't heard of it before.

This is not the only country that have this kind of initiative.

we also have

United Kingdom GAMSTOP - https://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/about-us/freedomofinformation/self-exclusion-registrations
Sweden Spelpaus.se. - https://www.spelinspektionen.se/lagar-regler/spelansvar-och-konsumentskydd/spelpaus.se
Denmark — ROFUS - https://spillemyndigheden.dk/en-us/rofus
Netherlands — Cruks. - https://kansspelautoriteit.nl/uitsluitregister-cruks

I just research it for you, please read the link if you want to know about them.

[Somto9Light]

The national self-exclusion registry is certainly a clever solution. I hadn't heard of it before. I know that in other countries, self-exclusion only applies to specific casinos. If a player is excluded from just one specific casino or several, they can start playing at others where they haven't already self-excluded. But there are many casinos, and you can't self-exclude at all of them. Incidentally, while this solution is good, it's not perfect. After all, a player can travel to another country or simply register at a casino in another jurisdiction and play there—for example, in New Zealand or the US.

You're right but do you think that a gambler can really travel to another country to continue gambling after he self-excluded himself in his own country? If anyone does this then I will say that it is the highest form of gambling addiction I have ever seen. However, i also admire the solution rendered by the Australian government because even if it doesn't bring a permanent solution to gambling addiction, it will help to curb it. The good thing i like about this development is that once you self-exclude yourself, it will cut across other casino companies too. I think it is a good way to help gambling addicts because left for them alone, they would have still continued gambling with other casinos if it were the usual case of being self-excluded in one of the casinos.

[alani123]

Would be funny to see someone trying to get such enforcements against Stake which is legally based there.
Stake has a legal base in Australia in spite of not offering services there oficislly. But anyone in the world can play in Stake with just a VPN.

If "legal" casino were smart they could force every country to enforce KYC if a casino holds a legal base there, instead they just keep losing customers to it. But I also guess many registered casino owners also own some non registered ones so they don't care since they're double dipping in both market.s