ACMA takes decisive action on self-exclusion failures in Australian iGaming
ACMA’s action against operators for self-exclusion failures has sent new ripples through the Australian online gambling sector. The regulator’s recent enforcement steps—publicly calling out four betting services for breaches related to BetStop, the National Self-Exclusion Register (NSER)—signal a pivotal moment for both players and providers navigating the ever-evolving landscape of responsible gaming.
The growing importance of self-exclusion in the iGaming age
Self-exclusion mechanisms, like Australia’s BetStop, are not just regulatory obligations. They represent a crucial safety net supporting individuals who are actively working to curb their gambling behavior. As the velocity and accessibility of online wagering increases, so do the challenges—and opportunities—of reinforcing responsible play.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) underscores this through strict mandates requiring operators to swiftly close accounts registered for self-exclusion. Operators must also ensure that such accounts are never reopened automatically and must not engage in direct marketing to registered individuals.
Operator breaches and regulatory response
In early June 2025, ACMA announced that Buddybet, Ultrabet, VicBet, and Topbet had breached self-exclusion regulations after a series of focused investigations. The details shed light on recurring industry pitfalls and regulatory expectations:
- Buddybet failed to close the wagering accounts of people listed on the NSER, compounding the error by sending them marketing communications,
- Ultrabet reopened a user’s account immediately after their self-exclusion period and also sent promotional messages to another self-excluded player,
- VicBet and Topbet each sent marketing material to users who had specifically opted out of gambling services, completing a quartet of compliance failures.
While Buddybet escaped further sanction due to its market exit, ACMA sought court-enforceable undertakings from Ultrabet, compelling a full review and upgrade of its compliance systems. VicBet and Topbet received formal warnings—clear signals to the sector that such breaches will not be tolerated.
The regulatory perspective
ACMA’s public commentary following these actions captures the agency’s stance and broader cultural expectations in Australia. Authority member Carolyn Lidgerwood emphasized, “Wagering providers should know their obligations under the rules and know that we are enforcing them. The rules about account closure must be complied with.”
For the iGaming industry, the key message is that respecting personal decisions about self-exclusion is not optional. Sending marketing to those seeking help is, in Lidgerwood’s words, “unacceptable.” Operators must have robust systems in place to protect vulnerable consumers—or face mounting consequences.
Patterns of enforcement—the Unibet precedent
This coordinated wave of regulatory scrutiny follows on the heels of another high-profile sanction. In May 2025, ACMA fined Unibet AU$1 million (US$649,170) after discovering over 100,000 compliance breaches relating to the NSER, including a failure to close user accounts promptly for nearly a thousand individuals.
The Unibet case, and now these recent crackdowns, point to an evolving enforcement environment where both the scale and granularity of operator oversight are increasing. It shows that ACMA is not merely reactive, but proactively seeking out systemic weaknesses across operators.
Technological and operational challenges for operators
Complying with self-exclusion rules in a technologically complex environment is no simple feat. Integrating the BetStop register into existing customer relationship management (CRM) and marketing systems requires accuracy, speed, and continuous oversight.
Operators need to navigate:
- Reliable cross-referencing of registrants to avoid accidental account access,
- Automated suppression of marketing communications targeting self-excluded users,
- Rigorous employee training and ongoing auditing to maintain high compliance standards.
The costs of failure are growing—not just regulatory penalties, but reputational harm and erosion of consumer trust in an already scrutinized industry.
Social and cultural resonance of responsible gambling
Australia’s approach to safeguarding individual choice in gambling is reflective of broader public sentiment. While iGaming is a popular form of digital entertainment, the societal cost of problem gambling—manifest in lost productivity, health issues, and diminished well-being—is both real and urgent.
The prioritization of responsible gambling is not just about regulatory box-ticking. It’s about building a sustainable industry that balances commercial interests with long-term community welfare. Operators seen as flouting these values will find themselves increasingly isolated both by regulators and by the public at large.
Future implications for the iGaming market
The ACMA’s recent actions on self-exclusion breaches send several clear signals to stakeholders:
- The era of leniency is over—it’s now compliance or consequence,
- Expect more public naming and shaming for high-profile or repeated offenses,
- Continued upgrades in technology and compliance infrastructure are not optional, but foundational to ongoing market participation.
For industry professionals, these trends reinforce the need to treat responsible gambling not as a hurdle, but as an integral part of reputation management and operational excellence. For players and consumer advocates, these developments offer reassurance that oversight is active and increasingly effective.
