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

[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.

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.

Yes, I know about that; many players prefer to play in offshore casinos, which will make this self-exclusion service harder to be implemented in them even if they file for it. The country can’t get access to those providing service to them since it’s not under their permit. Such players are not among those who will benefit from this. I’m more concerned about those who stick to regulated casinos and apply for self-exclusion but still get offers from the same casino.

[Mayor of ogba]

There's a thread about a US guy who closed his betting account but he was still receiving gambling promotions, and according to the guy the messages he was receiving made him go back to gambling and he lost the money he was supposed to use and finance his wedding. I like the idea of Australia government initiating a rule called BetStop which allows it citizens to stop gambling temporarily or permanently when they feel like, this law will help in reducing gambling addiction in Australia. With the AU$1 million as fine for breaking self-exclusion rule this rule will allow casinos to respect the decision of anyone who apply for self-exclusion and they will stop sending gambling promotions to such person unless they want to risk paying AU$1 million.

[DPHOR]

Yes, I know about that; many players prefer to play in offshore casinos, which will make this self-exclusion service harder to be implemented in them even if they file for it. The country can’t get access to those providing service to them since it’s not under their permit. Such players are not among those who will benefit from this. I’m more concerned about those who stick to regulated casinos and apply for self-exclusion but still get offers from the same casino.

You know when a gambler uses a regulated casino it gives them that right to be able to file a case against the casino since they aren't acting upon their terms and conditions.
This is the main reason why people love using regulated casino should any scam or whatever that may comes along while using the gambling site to gamble. However, self-exclusion should be effected on the demand of the gambler after few minutes or for about days depending on the casino, but if they entirely failed to implement it then gambler has all rights to file a casino against the gambling site.

[Oyoyoma_yu]

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

The idea of introducing self exclusion is for the safety of gamblers, and this step taking by the Australian government is really a good one. Most of these gambling platforms are after their own business, and does not really care about the challenges that gamblers face gambling in their platforms. Surposing their is no regulatory body on self exclusion, this man would have been lured into gambling even after applying for self exclusion. Many countries are facing the problem of their citizens being so much addicted to gambling, and sometimes if they see a way out they will embrace it, their government doesn't care about them, so therefore left them struggling with gambling addiction, and this is an initiative worthy of emulation because when a country's leadership cares about their citizens, they will always do the best to safe them from the menace of gambling.

[Kavelj22]

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.

It is a good lesson for gambling sites not to join the Australian market, because who really cares about users' mental health? The incident should teach governments everywhere the most important lesson about users' health is more valuable than the revenues collected from companies in the gambling industry. I think everybody here is interested by this incident like it's a dream comes true, because no aithorities in any country would care that much but to collect taxes from companies and gamblers as well.

And to be honest, I doubt that authorities in Australia really care about applying laws that much if there wasn't a big penality in return, and to show the public their reaction. The casino did it wrong by ignore self-exclusion for 157 users all together. If they were just few, I guess nobody will notice or take action if noticed.

[Wiwo]

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.

Those promotional emails are what you subscribe to when opening your accounts, and the marketing team already placed your emails under the automated email. list, which receives constant promotional emails.

If you have self-excluded yourself from those platforms, you won't stop receiving those marketing emails until you manually unsubscribe from that email; only then will you stop receiving them.

[famososMuertos]

First of all, it is important to understand that this is a measure implemented by the Australian government because the issue is a social problem, and thus a social issue the state seeks to address; given that, like any other vice such as drug abuse, it harms productivity, families, and social well-being in general.

Consequently, self-exclusion is not merely an option; it is a policy taken very seriously. Australia is a country where people enjoy gambling, making this measure particularly interesting.

This statistic is truly alarming:

Australia records annual losses of around A$32 billion from legal forms of gambling; a figure the Australian Gambling Research Centre identifies as the highest per capita loss in the world.

https://aifs.gov.au/all-research/research-snapshots/national-gambling-prevalence-study-pilot-2024

[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.

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.

Yes, you are right on this point. Unfortunately, most of the large casinos where most players register are not licensed in our countries, so this advantage will not be of much value to us.

Honestly, most people look to register at large casinos that have a great reputation and popularity, so I don't think anyone would prefer to register at another casino for one advantage.

[Awaklara]

You know when a gambler uses a regulated casino it gives them that right to be able to file a case against the casino since they aren't acting upon their terms and conditions.
This is the main reason why people love using regulated casino should any scam or whatever that may comes along while using the gambling site to gamble. However, self-exclusion should be effected on the demand of the gambler after few minutes or for about days depending on the casino, but if they entirely failed to implement it then gambler has all rights to file a casino against the gambling site.

Previously, there were indeed several cases of gamblers who opted for self-exclusion from casinos, but those gamblers could still access the casino. Casinos should enforce their terms and conditions, not ignore the regulations that have been agreed upon. It would be very fortunate if the government also supported such monitoring processes. This way, gamblers are not disadvantaged, and casinos will be more compliant with regulations. I think that is in everyone's best interest.

[abaeze]

This can be called a two-tiered prevention on the part of gamblers, one step by the addicted person and one step by the government. However, I do not know whether all countries have such self-exclusion laws. Because if casino companies continue to give them notifications or messages even after registering here, then legal action should be taken for this.

However, self-control is the most important thing for me because if a gambler gambles privately with their friends, the government will not come there and their addiction will not decrease.

[Hispo]

This can be called a two-tiered prevention on the part of gamblers, one step by the addicted person and one step by the government. However, I do not know whether all countries have such self-exclusion laws. Because if casino companies continue to give them notifications or messages even after registering here, then legal action should be taken for this.

However, self-control is the most important thing for me because if a gambler gambles privately with their friends, the government will not come there and their addiction will not decrease.

Right.
There is no question on how important self-exclusion is, I am sure it is the kind of measure which has saved the finances of hundreds of thousands of people who were becoming addicted to gambling, but they managed to get out of it in time thanks to the responsibility of their government and their casino.

Also, it is obvious not all countries have this kind of self-exclusion system, this is rather common in countries in which the government shows interest in regulating and allowing people to gamble responsibly, but this kind of things do not happen in third world countries.

[tread93]

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

Yeah I do because it’s more strict, it adds an additional layer of protection to the gambler that wishes to stop temporarily. This makes casinos realize that they need to also put proper protections in place on their marketing lists and to have a sorting system to take the folks that are on this list off of their gambling accounts and also their marketing lists. I see it as a win.

[moneystery]

I think that's one of the advantages of being in a country with very strict regulations on casinos that there won't be any casinos trying to evade their responsibilities, and they'll comply by paying fines if they make a mistake. If it were a different regulator, perhaps the casinos would ignore that responsibility and instead point out that the user is at fault because they knowingly kept gambling even though they were addicted. The regulator might not bother dealing with the problem at all since they're just selling licenses and don't want to handle such complicated issues if it's required.
The system developed by the Australian regulator is also quite good because it clearly states that when players feel they need to self-exclude, they can register; they don't need to send a message to the casino. So it's up to the casino to understand whether their users are self-excluded or not.

[Texac]

You know when a gambler uses a regulated casino it gives them that right to be able to file a case against the casino since they aren't acting upon their terms and conditions.
This is the main reason why people love using regulated casino should any scam or whatever that may comes along while using the gambling site to gamble. However, self-exclusion should be effected on the demand of the gambler after few minutes or for about days depending on the casino, but if they entirely failed to implement it then gambler has all rights to file a casino against the gambling site.

Yeah, with offshore platform, player can easily end up in situation where there’s basically no one to complain to, or where regulator’s decision is difficult to enforce. But if any casino is licensed in particular jurisdiction, self-exclusion shouldn’t just be some nice-looking feature on the website.
And in this case that’s why it looks especially bad when self-excluded player keeps receiving advertising from same operator. I think, this kind of gambler protection is one of the main reason to choose regulated casino over offshore one in first place.

[Floxynice]

I love this. Honestly many countries don't care that much about the gamblers even though they are making money from gambling in their state. The Australian government just demonstrated that the interest of the gamblers can be well protected.

What exactly will make a casino to ignore a gambler's request for self exclusion even when they are aware that the gambler's request is backed by a regulatory body that ensures that gamblers who make such request are well attended to? I believe we all know the answer to this, it is because the casino is greedy. They want to keep making money from vulnerable gamblers.

I love this for them, other casinos will be more careful now. It is better applying for self exclusion through the regulatory body than directly through the casino.

[lionheart78]

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

Source: ACMA

Yes, I think that as long as the regulatory board is not corrupt anything that is related to gambler issue must be taken care of by the government's gambling regulatory sector.  This way, the gambler won't always be in the losing end when issues like failure to implement self-exclusion request arises.

I am not saying that all casinos are taking advantage of players, but there are some casinos that just ignore their responsibility to the gamblers and often times put the blame on the player.  With the government taking care of self-exclusion, gamblers who really want to avoid the casino platform will then be taken care of, making sure that the casino will do their part regarding the self-exclusion and stopping sending promotional materials to people who is unde self-exclusion.

[Nwada001]

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 is not self-exclusion applied in the casino, but it’s a self-exclusion applied in the general self-exclusion platform where they can send notifications and directions to whichever casino that’s under the jurisdiction and where the person is registered, which is fair. The casinos are supposed to cut off anything that has to do with promotion or information that can trigger the person to gamble.

[Outhue]

Self exclusion can be a robbery on casinos by customers, any online casino that wants to walk this path must walk on it carefully because the ground can be very slippery, if you don't walk carefully you will fall down. I don't recommend self exclusion feature on new online casinos, it's not always safe for newer casinos, and any casinos who wants to do it must be ready to handle things carefully or else gamblers will take advantage big time, I mean the addicted gamblers.

[Agbe]

This is a welcome development because if someone has, signed up for self exclusion and the Casino is aware that, the person has signed up for such things. The right thing to do is to close the accounts of those who has signed up for such programmes. Not only that if the casinos went further and sent Emails and SMS to such people then , it becomes inappropriate and against the laws. And if such a casino is found guilty of any wrong doing then it's a welcome development.

The casino was only trying to force these persons back to gambling, which is against their wish , as they had already signed up for self exclusion. The fine is good because it will serve as a lesson to other Casinos because, what the casino did was inappropriate concerning the surrounding situation.

[Cantsay]

I think that's one of the advantages of being in a country with very strict regulations on casinos that there won't be any casinos trying to evade their responsibilities, and they'll comply by paying fines if they make a mistake. If it were a different regulator, perhaps the casinos would ignore that responsibility and instead point out that the user is at fault because they knowingly kept gambling even though they were addicted. The regulator might not bother dealing with the problem at all since they're just selling licenses and don't want to handle such complicated issues if it's required.
The system developed by the Australian regulator is also quite good because it clearly states that when players feel they need to self-exclude, they can register; they don't need to send a message to the casino. So it's up to the casino to understand whether their users are self-excluded or not.

I have opened this thread multiple times, but I have never been able to relate to this topic. After reading this reply of yours, I have finally been able to tell what is it that was making me not relate to this thread and that was because in my country there isn't any strict law that would make those gambling companies take self-exclusion seriously.

Sometimes I just wonder if there will ever be a time when the regulation in my country is going to be strict and we would also receive the same protection as others.