Australia to launch gambling ad opt-out register, funded by new levy on sportsbooks

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2026/04/13: Researchers, lawmakers call for tighter regulations on Australia’s gambling ad ban 2025/09/19: Sri Lankan cabinet backs gambling tax amendments 2026/05/15: iGaming Ontario launches new online casino self-exclusion tool 2025/02/03: Monumental Sports Network adds wagering via Play Anywhere and BetMGM partnership

The Backstory

A compromise after pressure for a full ad ban

Australia’s planned Wagering Advertising Opt-out Register reflects a government effort to move between two competing pressures: rising public concern over gambling harm and resistance from broadcasters, sports bodies and wagering operators to a blanket advertising ban. The current bill would create a centralized mechanism for people to stop receiving wagering ads from online content service providers, while funding oversight through a levy on sportsbooks and other wagering service providers.

The policy did not emerge in isolation. It follows months of scrutiny over whether a partial advertising framework can meaningfully reduce gambling exposure in a media market where sports broadcasts, streaming platforms, podcasts, social media and betting apps overlap. Earlier proposals focused on limiting television wagering ads, banning them around live sport during daytime and evening hours, restricting online ads to logged-in adult accounts and barring athletes, celebrities and influencers from promoting betting. The new register adds a consumer-controlled layer to that model rather than replacing it with a universal prohibition.

That choice is central to the stakes. Gambling advertising has become a visible part of Australian sport and online media, but policymakers are trying to curb its reach without destabilizing commercial arrangements that fund broadcasters and sporting codes. The opt-out register suggests the government is prioritizing administrable limits, targeted restrictions and cost recovery over the broader ban recommended by some public health advocates.

Loophole warnings shaped the register debate

The opt-out approach has already drawn criticism from researchers and crossbench lawmakers who argue that placing responsibility on individuals and families may blunt the effectiveness of reform. In April, gambling researchers and independent politicians warned that Australia’s proposed advertising limits could leave significant gaps across podcasts, influencer marketing and streaming platforms, where age checks and ad controls are harder to enforce. Those concerns were outlined in coverage of calls for tighter regulations on Australia’s gambling ad ban.

The debate focused on whether an opt-out model can work across shared household accounts and platforms that serve content through embedded promotions rather than conventional ads. Podcast host reads, sponsored segments and influencer content may not be removed in the same way as programmatic advertising. That distinction matters because younger audiences often consume sport, entertainment and commentary outside traditional television schedules, reducing the impact of broadcast-focused caps.

The government’s earlier “triple lock” concept sought to require streaming video, music and podcast platforms, search engines and sports websites to verify age and provide opt-out tools for wagering content. Critics said the structure could become almost unworkable if households must adjust settings platform by platform or if ads appear inside content rather than beside it. The new national register appears designed to simplify that process by creating a single opt-out mechanism, but its effectiveness will depend on how broadly online content providers are covered and how the rules treat promotional material that is not easily classified as an advertisement.

ACMA’s enforcement role keeps expanding

The Australian Communications and Media Authority is positioned to play a larger role under the new bill, which would allow it to recover the costs of administering and enforcing the register and related inducement-marketing rules. That builds on a broader regulatory pattern in which ACMA has become the central agency policing online wagering compliance, from illegal offshore operators to consumer protection requirements under the Interactive Gambling Act.

ACMA’s existing enforcement activity has focused heavily on illegal gambling websites. In one recent action, the regulator ordered internet service providers to block four more unlawful platforms after finding they breached Australian online gambling law. The regulator said more than 1,200 illegal sites had been blocked since late 2019, with another 220 leaving the Australian market, according to a report on how the Australian gambling regulator blocked four illegal gambling sites.

That record underscores why lawmakers are leaning on ACMA for the advertising register. The agency already has the legal infrastructure to issue compliance orders, monitor online operators and push service providers to restrict access. But advertising controls are different from site blocking. They require coordination across licensed bookmakers, digital platforms, media companies and potentially intermediaries that serve or target ads. Cost recovery through a levy signals that the government wants industry to fund the administrative burden created by its marketing practices.

The illegal-market context also complicates policy design. If rules become too restrictive for licensed operators while offshore sites continue to reach Australians, regulators risk pushing some customers toward companies with fewer consumer safeguards. That is a recurring argument from the licensed industry, and it is one reason reforms have emphasized targeted harm reduction and enforceable obligations rather than a single sweeping ban.

Legal pressure on operators adds to reform momentum

Advertising reform is unfolding as Australian wagering operators face growing legal and reputational pressure over how they acquire, retain and interact with customers. A class-action lawsuit against Sportsbet, for example, has become a focal point for questions about compliance with the Interactive Gambling Act and the boundaries of online betting products.

The case centers on Sportsbet’s “fast codes” system for in-play betting. Plaintiffs allege the company breached federal law by enabling live bets through codes that allowed customers to place wagers online. The Supreme Court of Victoria ordered affected customers to be notified that they would automatically be included in the action unless they opted out by Feb. 13, a move expected to expand the case substantially. The potential widening of the class-action lawsuit against Australia’s Sportsbet illustrates how consumer opt-out mechanisms are becoming important not only in regulation, but also in litigation.

Sportsbet denies wrongdoing, and the case remains contested. Still, the lawsuit adds to the political backdrop for stricter gambling oversight. It raises questions about whether operators have interpreted online betting rules too aggressively and whether existing laws have kept pace with product design. Separately, Sportsbet, Entain and Tabcorp were sued over allegations involving responsible gambling failures and funds accepted from a former financial planner. Those cases reinforce the sense among lawmakers that advertising, inducements and customer-risk controls are linked.

The current bill’s focus on inducement-based marketing responds to that broader concern. Requirements to identify at-risk customers, restrict some referral arrangements and maintain compliance records point to a regulatory view that harm can be amplified before a bet is placed. Promotions, commissions, VIP treatment and targeted offers can all influence customer behavior. By tying the ad register to inducement rules, the government is treating marketing as part of the consumer protection system rather than as a separate media issue.

Other markets show the shift toward opt-out tools

Australia is not alone in turning to centralized exclusion and opt-out systems as online gambling expands. Ontario recently introduced BetGuard, a responsible gambling tool that allows individuals to exclude themselves from all regulated online casinos and sports betting sites in the province. Before that, consumers had to self-exclude operator by operator. The new system prevents access to existing accounts, blocks new account creation and stops marketing to registered users, as detailed in coverage of iGaming Ontario’s online casino self-exclusion tool.

Ontario’s model is broader than Australia’s proposed advertising opt-out because it can block gambling access entirely for selected periods. But the policy logic is similar: fragmented operator-level controls are less effective than a single system applying across the regulated market. Both approaches also depend on operator compliance, data matching and regulator capacity. If a person opts out but continues to receive ads or can easily open accounts elsewhere, confidence in the framework weakens.

Internationally, governments also are looking at gambling through a fiscal lens. Sri Lanka’s Cabinet has backed amendments to raise betting taxes and double the casino entry fee for locals, using gambling levies to support state revenue amid financial pressure. The proposed changes to Sri Lanka’s gambling tax framework show another side of the same policy tension: governments are seeking more revenue and tighter control from gambling industries that remain politically sensitive.

Australia’s new levy is narrower, designed to fund ACMA’s cost of implementing and enforcing advertising and inducement reforms. Even so, it reflects a wider shift in which regulators expect gambling companies to pay for the systems needed to monitor the risks they create. The success of the register will depend on whether that funding produces practical enforcement across the digital advertising chain, not just a new compliance obligation on paper.