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

[pawanjain]

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

Now that's what we call a tough lesson. Casino sites think they can do anything for their profits and nobody will say them anything.
Good thing that Australian government took action on such casino sites which are not complying with self exclusion policies.
Now that the casino site is penalized, they would have learnt a lesson and stopped their illicit practices to lure users into gambling.

[Natalim]

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

This is really possible and I thank you for bringing up this idea because it makes sense.

Because here's what I think, if they see that a huge amount of money is going to illegal casinos then why not enjoy that market as well. the fact that large amounts are going there means they are not effectively enforcing against them, so they ride with that market and make profit from it, but not necessarily linking it directly to the registered casino because as you know that would put the entire capital at risk.

[Ashawowo(OS)]

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.

This is good, I like when gambling companies are held accountable. Australia is really going well to restore sanity to its citizens. This is far better than what Wales is doing by providing finding to offset addiction damaages on it's citizens instead of enacting laws to prevent those damages in the first place. Our country is different, I've never even seen the self-exclusion feature in our local casinos and sportsbook, not to mention of enforcing it. The president is only after the revenue, no concern for it's citizens. Australia citizens are lucky that the government is really protecting them. In some other countries, they would allow the players continue playing until they hit a jackpot, then they invalidate their wins.

[Reid]

This is a good lesson for every gambling site out there. They must follow their own rules and if a gambler already applied for self-exclusion, then no e-mails or text message must be received by the applicant.

Gambling addiction is not a joke. If a gambler applied for self-exclusion, it means he took all the courage he has to do it and was brave enough to give up gambling. That's big and I think admission of the truth is not easy at all.
It's just right that those who will break the agreement should be fined and a good warning that the business will be shut down if ever it happens again.

[Smartprofit]

Here, I think it's important to sync online casinos' internal software with the Australian National Self-Exclusion Register.

It's unclear from this story how exactly the National Self-Exclusion Register notifies casinos about player account bans. Does it do it via carrier pigeons? Or signal fires? Maybe they sent a mounted messenger, who was killed by an arrow from evil elves on a secret path? 🙋

I mean, this entire system should be completely automated! Once the information is entered into the National Self-Exclusion Register, players should no longer be able to place bets at the online casino. After all, this is the 21st century, not the 20th. 🧖

If the system did operate automatically (via an API), then it raises suspicions that the online casino simply intentionally ignored this information. Perhaps they made more profit from the games of these 157 players than they paid in fines. Perhaps they were millionaire gambling addicts...

[SFR10]

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

It looks better on paper, but it still relies heavily on casinos to do it within a reasonable time frame. In addition, I strongly believe there's always going to be some unintentionally delayed incidents where it creates another opening for gamblers with bad self-control and I still haven't mentioned the possible issues with unlicensed casinos ^{[in other words, I have mixed feelings about it]}.

[Findingnemo]

It seems good but maintaining one self-exclusion record for the entire country or every casino that is registered under their license is kind of more complicated than it sounds, but yeah not having any contact from gambling-related ads can be less triggering to a user.

I am interested in knowing who got the money, the government or the person who received those emails?

[vincentixz]

If someone is already registered, they really shouldn't be getting betting access or marketing messages from the same company. the penalty definitely shows there are actual consequences when those rules aren't followed.

[WhoYouCantKill]

This is good, I like when gambling companies are held accountable. Australia is really going well to restore sanity to its citizens. This is far better than what Wales is doing by providing finding to offset addiction damaages on its citizens instead of enacting laws to prevent those damages in the first place. Our country is different, I've never even seen the self-exclusion feature in our local casinos and sportsbook, not to mention of enforcing it. The president is only after the revenue, no concern for its citizens. Australia citizens are lucky that the government is really protecting them. In some other countries, they would allow the players continue playing until they hit a jackpot, then they invalidate their wins.

One thing about the self exclusion feature is that it’s only useful the moment that the casinos or gambling operators actually makes it difficult or nearly impossible for users who are already excluded from gambling to easily return either through reopening another account or using another platform. Having the self exclusion feature on paper is totally different from actually enforcing it properly.
If you ask me BTW, I’ll say that accountability should equally cover bother prevention and also what happens the moment operators actually fail in their duty to protect users who have already in one way or the other displayed any/some signs of harmful gambling.

[Coyster]

As someone who is active in the Scam Accusation board, and has seen a lot of accusations against gambling platforms failures to protect problem gamblers, i agree with this penalty and resolution. It is common to find casinos that do not take player protection as seriously as they should, and it puts the gamblers into more harm.

The BetStop idea is also a good one. I don't know why Dabble failed to comply, despite being a registered casino, plus the breach is large, over a hundred users allowed to gamble when they have already indicated their unwillingness to. I think this would strengthen this regulation (BetStop), as other platforms would fully comply going forward, so they do not face the same penalty.

[Muba20]

I came across a news story where a person asked for self-exclusion on their betting platform but later they let him place a bet and that person lost a large amount of his money on the bet and later he filed a complaint against that betting company. In my opinion, if someone asks for self-exclusion, then it should be accepted quickly. Platforms should understand that when a person can no longer control himself, he does this.

In my opinion, this feature should be under the control of the government along with the casinos. If it is under the control of the government, the casinos will not encourage those gamblers to place bets even if they want to. But if it is only under their control, then they can continue their marketing secretly. Moreover, it may also be the case that when a gambler plays at the casino and wins big despite requesting self-exclusion, they may also block their money transfer on this pretext. That is why I would argue that keeping this feature under government control is the most logical.

[Zaka1221]

Rules always needed to be follow because these are for having things on balance specially registered casinos always needed to be stay on high alert they are having more responsibility and chance of facing situations like this in few countries law is strict about things like these hopefully its going to be good for many others now they will be have improvement and never try to go beyond law.

But for having restrictions like this which are helpful needed to be have registered casinos in mostly countries things are not working like here in Australia few countries are having but mostly are not doing anything just because of this addiction is increasing and peoples are facing problems which are never been good for any society specially in developing countries they needed to work out on this.

[Leahized]

This sounds good, the law has been implemented meticulously in Australia for the sake of public safety. And until this law changes, no casino will dare to make this mistake. Personally, I heard such a law for the first time in the interest of citizens safety. But if the government of each state kept a strict watch on the illegal activities of casinos, then no gambler would become addicted. And the request for self-exclusion would be effective within the appropriate time.

The sad thing is, even though such a law exists in my state, it is not practically enforced by the government. As a result, public casinos are misbehaving and deceiving customers. Because the subordinate officials are involved in corruption.

[Johnlomape]

If someone is already registered, they really shouldn't be getting betting access or marketing messages from the same company. the penalty definitely shows there are actual consequences when those rules aren't followed.

This kind of self exclusion need to be applied in all casinos and any casino that tries to abuse it by allowing a gambler that had applied for self exclusion can be penalized by the government. There are still casinos that will allow you to gamble and losing more money after you have asked them to self exclude you from gambling. Casinos need to respect users opinions for something like this not to be happening everytime.

[IjawMan]

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 system is far better that the self exclusion cause if you have to apply to stop directly from the casinos they might still end up sending you ads or bonuses they might seem enticing to the gambler but in the case of the government who happens to be the regulatory authority, there would not be any form of complacency or compromise and at such if there is any form of neglect from the casinos then a heavy fine or sanction would be imposed on the casino in order to put them on track.

[Versatile_choice]

I've never even seen the self-exclusion feature in our local casinos and sportsbook, not to mention of enforcing it. The president is only after the revenue, no concern for it's citizens. Australia citizens are lucky that the government is really protecting them. In some other countries, they would allow the players continue playing until they hit a jackpot, then they invalidate their wins.

Really! Almost all the casinos/ betting site I make use of here all have this self exclusion feature, I'm talking about our local casinos. I could remember the other time I decided to self exclude myself from gambling. then I didn't know how it works, after some months I came back to gamble I tried to place a bet then they said I'm in self exclusion period then I decided to reach out the customer service to see if they could possibly put an end to it but they said they can't undo the process not until the exclusion period is over. And during that period I didn't get any message from that site not until the break is over. So any gambling site that is sending emails to a gambler during self exclusion period deserve a red flag because it's obvious that they are more interested in the profit they are getting and not how gamblers are doing if they are addicted or not.

[CryptoHeadlineNews]

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

This is a brilliant move by the Australian national betting regulating agency @BetShop. Because with this imposed penalty of $1million Australian dollar, other casinos will be forced to always ensure a self-exclusion request from a gambler is respected promptly without delay. Because relaying on individual casinos to enforce a self-exclusion on its players, it won't be effective like it it's been enforced by a third party regulatory gambling agency. So I wish other regulatory agencies from different countries around the world could enforce this type of operation to gambling casinos.

[Yorubek]

This is good, I like when gambling companies are held accountable. Australia is really going well to restore sanity to its citizens. This is far better than what Wales is doing by providing finding to offset addiction damaages on it's citizens instead of enacting laws to prevent those damages in the first place. Our country is different, I've never even seen the self-exclusion feature in our local casinos and sportsbook, not to mention of enforcing it. The president is only after the revenue, no concern for it's citizens. Australia citizens are lucky that the government is really protecting them. In some other countries, they would allow the players continue playing until they hit a jackpot, then they invalidate their wins.

If a gambler does not want to stop gambling on his own, then no matter how many law the government makes, he will not be able to stop gambling, the role or contribution of gamblers to the betterment of the country should be understood by the government of every country. The law that the Australian government has made to protect the people from gambling addiction will undoubtedly be good for the general people. If the government is aware, then the betting company will be forced to be accountable and obey the law.

I think Wales has adopted a compensation method for gamblers who have become destitute due to gambling addiction or gambling. This is good for gamblers, as a result of which gamblers will be able to dream of living a new life and will gradually be able to return to a healthy and normal life.

[Z_MBFM]

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.

Even if you close your self-exclusion account, those platforms will send you different types of emails. I have seen this. I have self-excluded myself on a few platforms but they still send me promotional emails constantly even though my account is locked. This is actually a kind of trap of casino sites because if they keep sending promotional emails like this, gamblers will never be able to stop gambling. They will open a new account and then gamble on that platform or on any other platform. So I think this fine is definitely fair and it should be like this. They are always thinking about their business but they have no responsibility towards a gambler who becomes destitute by gambling.

[suzanne5223]

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

Yes, it will be funny, but the parent or technology company behind the gambling platform, called Easygo Entertainment, is based only in Melbourne, Australia, along with the brand founders (Ed Craven and Bijan Tehrani), who are Australian.
It is not included among the casinos under the BetStop service. Plus, the brand (St*ke) is also restricted in Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and several European nations

https://www.acma.gov.au/foi/2025-10/log-173-request-documents-relating-stakecom-medium-rare-nv-and-easygo-solutions-pty-ltd
https://www.acma.gov.au/foi/2024-05/log-137-request-documents-relating-compliance-stakecom-medium-rare-nv-and-easygo-solutions-pty-ltd-laws-and-regulations
https://www.acma.gov.au/foi/2023-11/log-128-request-correspondence-uk-gambling-commission-regarding-stake