ACMA to ban celebrities and influencers from gambling advertising

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

Australia moves from enforcement to advertising design

Australia’s planned ban on celebrities, athletes, influencers and other “notable people” in gambling advertising is the latest stage in a regulatory campaign that has shifted from policing illegal operators to reshaping how licensed wagering brands may reach consumers. The Australian Communications and Media Authority’s initial guidance puts the industry on notice before the Jan. 1, 2027, start date and signals that promotion, not just product legality, is now a central compliance risk.

The rule lands in a market where public concern has concentrated on the visibility of betting brands across sports, social media and digital entertainment. ACMA’s approach stops short of a total gambling ad ban. Instead, it targets the people whose profile can make wagering seem socially endorsed: current and former professional athletes, celebrities, online influencers and others with public sway. The regulator has not set a follower-count threshold, leaving influence to be assessed by profile, reputation and ability to shape decisions.

That discretion is important. It gives ACMA room to apply the rule across fast-changing digital channels where a large traditional celebrity and a niche creator can both move audiences. It also creates uncertainty for bookmakers, agencies and talent managers because the compliance question will not always be whether a person is famous nationally, but whether they are notable enough in context to affect betting behavior.

Offshore promotions helped set the backdrop

The guidance follows a series of enforcement warnings showing how social media promotion can pull Australian audiences toward operators outside the licensing system. In June, ACMA warned creators they could face fines of up to AU$59,400 if they promoted illegal online gambling services, after influencers advertised offshore bookmakers to Australian followers. Complete iGaming reported that the regulator’s warning came after several creators promoted Leon Australia, an offshore brand operating from Belize that claimed to be a top Australian sportsbook and online casino despite lacking a local license. The episode was detailed in coverage of Australian influencers threatened with fines over illegal offshore gambling promotions.

That case exposed a problem common to digital gambling markets: offshore operators can borrow local credibility by paying or recruiting influencers, while regulated brands face tighter rules on messaging, targeting and responsible gambling. ACMA had already found Leon Australia in breach of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 and asked internet service providers to block access. But social media posts and programmatic advertising showed how quickly banned or unlicensed brands can reappear in ordinary media feeds.

The notable-person ban addresses a related but distinct risk. It does not only punish promotion of illegal operators. It restricts licensed providers from using influential figures in gambling ads at all, except in narrow racing-related circumstances. That reflects a policy judgment that the persuasive effect of fame is itself a harm factor, even where the operator is lawful.

Self-exclusion cases sharpened consumer-protection demands

ACMA’s advertising posture also sits alongside stricter enforcement of consumer-protection obligations, particularly Australia’s national self-exclusion register, BetStop. The register, launched in 2023, allows people to block themselves from all licensed online wagering providers. Once a person enrolls, operators must close accounts and stop sending promotions.

Recent cases have shown that the regulator is willing to punish failures that keep self-excluded customers inside the marketing and betting loop. Dabble Sports paid more than AU$1 million after ACMA found it had failed to close 157 accounts belonging to BetStop registrants and sent 839 marketing messages to 165 self-excluded customers. The platform also sent more than 2,000 push notifications to 45 customers without required BetStop information. Those findings, covered in Dabble’s AU$1 million-plus BetStop penalty, underscored the regulator’s view that promotion to vulnerable or excluded players is not a technical breach.

Palmerbet faced a different but related sanction. ACMA found that the bookmaker failed to close the account of a person who had registered with BetStop in September 2023 and accepted 312 bets from that individual between December 2024 and February 2025. The company entered an 18-month court-enforceable undertaking, agreed to an independent compliance review and repaid deposits. The case, described in Palmerbet’s BetStop undertaking, reinforced a core regulatory principle: consumer protections only work if licensed operators’ systems respond immediately.

Together, the BetStop matters and the influencer warnings explain why the new advertising guidance is framed around both reach and responsibility. The regulator is not only asking whether ads are lawful. It is asking whether the structure of promotion undermines safeguards designed to reduce gambling harm.

Courts have backed tougher consequences

ACMA’s hand has been strengthened by court outcomes under the Interactive Gambling Act. The Federal Court imposed AU$24.24 million in penalties on the providers and promoters of prohibited online poker services using the PPPfish, Shuffle Gaming and Redraw Poker brands. Brisbane poker figure Rhys Edward Jones received a AU$9 million penalty, while Brisbane Poker Pty Ltd was fined AU$15 million. An associate was fined AU$240,000 and restrained from aiding the service.

The case, covered in Australia’s Federal Court fines for prohibited online poker services, showed that the regulator can pursue both operators and promoters where the underlying service is illegal. It also demonstrated the long time frame of major enforcement actions: ACMA began proceedings in 2022 before the later court rulings and penalties. By contrast, advertising guidance can shape market behavior before breaches become litigation.

That preventive function matters for the notable-person ban. Once promotional contracts are signed and campaigns produced, the practical cost of unwinding them can be high. By releasing initial guidance well before 2027, ACMA is giving wagering providers, media companies and talent representatives time to restructure deals and avoid creating campaigns that will become unlawful when the rules take effect.

The policy trade-off differs from total bans

Australia’s targeted model contrasts with broader proposals elsewhere. In the Philippines, debate over a total gambling advertising ban has raised concerns that silencing licensed operators could hand visibility to illegal offshore sites that ignore local rules. Complete iGaming’s analysis of the Philippine proposal argued that advertising bans can reduce the legal market’s ability to channel players into supervised platforms while illegal operators continue to promote through social media, private groups and mirror domains. That risk was explored in data from five countries on gambling ad bans and illegal operators.

The Australian rule attempts a narrower balance. It leaves licensed brands with advertising avenues, subject to other laws and codes, but removes a category of endorsement that regulators see as especially powerful. Racing also receives a specific carveout when ads relate solely or principally to racing and appear on dedicated racing programs, channels or online services. That exception reflects the political and commercial reality that racing content remains deeply integrated with wagering, while still limiting spillover into general entertainment and social media environments.

The distinction will not eliminate enforcement challenges. Offshore operators can still try to recruit influencers, and licensed companies may test the boundaries of what counts as a notable person or a dedicated racing service. But the framework gives ACMA clearer grounds to investigate campaigns that use fame as the selling point.

Compliance will hinge on influence, contracts and platforms

The next phase will be operational. Wagering providers will need to review ambassador agreements, affiliate arrangements, sponsorships, social media campaigns and content integrations. Media buyers will need controls to prevent ads featuring notable people from being served in prohibited environments. Influencers and agencies will need to distinguish between general commentary, racing content and paid promotion of wagering services.

Because ACMA has indicated it may publish compliance alerts and investigation reports, early cases are likely to define the practical scope of the rule. Those reports could clarify how the regulator treats retired athletes, micro-influencers, podcast hosts, tipsters, racing identities and creators whose audiences are small but highly engaged.

The stakes are commercial and regulatory. Licensed operators depend on brand recognition in a crowded digital market, but the regulator is moving to limit the social cues that can normalize betting. The broader message from recent ACMA action is consistent: Australia wants gambling firms to compete inside the licensing system without using celebrity appeal, direct marketing failures or influencer networks to weaken consumer protections.