Australian lobby group behind youth social media ban linked to major gambling ad company

Charlotte Capewell

12 December 2025 at 8:01am UTC-5

Source: Shutterstock

Email, LinkedIn, and more

Australian journalists have uncovered a link between the lobby group, 36 Months, that pushed for a high-profile youth social media ban in the country and advertising firm Finch, which is behind campaigns for betting companies like Entain-owned Ladbrokes, Sportsbet, and CrownBet.

Investigative reporting by Crikey discovered that 36 Months was partly founded and funded by Finch, which has spent years working on promotional campaigns for gambling companies, including Tab Australia’s “Get Your Bet On” campaign.

Article continues below ad

According to Crikey, the lobby group is jointly owned by radio host Michael Wipfil’s Kawaii Media and Finch. The managing director of 36 Months, Greg Attwells, also worked as Finch’s head of communications, and Finch staff are believed to have worked on some of 36 Months’ campaigns.

The government has spent several months promoting the ban on social media, but has not made significant progress towards fulfilling recommendations from a bipartisan inquiry calling for major restrictions on gambling advertising.

Crikey stressed that it was not suggesting that 36 Months and its associates had directly lobbied the government to prioritize the social media ban over gambling. However, the link between the two worlds may appear incongruous to those campaigning to limit exposure to gambling advertising in the country.

Charlotte Capewell brings her passion for storytelling and expertise in writing, researching, and the gambling industry to every article she writes. Her specialties include the US gambling industry, regulator legislation, igaming, and more.

View Charlotte Capewell's bio and articles.

Locations:

Verticals:

Sports Betting

Sectors:

Topics:

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

How a child-safety crusade collided with Australia’s gambling ad debate

The revelation that youth social media lobby group 36 Months is partly founded and funded by advertising firm Finch, a longtime creative partner to major wagering brands, lands in the middle of an intensifying fight over gambling promotion in Australia. The link, first surfaced by investigative journalists, underscores the messy overlap between two dominant policy threads: the government’s push to shield children from online harms and the unresolved question of how far to go in curbing gambling advertising. Even without evidence of direct lobbying, the optics are stark for advocates who argue that industry-aligned marketing has normalized betting in sport and across media. The timing is sensitive. Ministers have spent months promoting a youth social media crackdown while leaving open whether to adopt a bipartisan inquiry’s phased path to a total ad ban. The juxtaposition has widened scrutiny of how influence, access and regulation interact across politics, media and tech.

Pressure mounts for a comprehensive crackdown

Campaigners and crossbench MPs have stepped up efforts to keep the government from watering down reforms. In recent weeks, lawmakers and advocates warned that anything short of a full prohibition risks perpetuating harm and leaving children exposed at sporting venues and on television. Calls to stay the course invoke the late Labor MP Peta Murphy’s recommendations for a three-year, staged ban that would give broadcasters and codes time to adjust. The Greens signaled they will use parliament’s return to push for a Senate inquiry, a tactic aimed at building a public record that narrows room for compromise. Independent MPs including Kate Chaney and David Pocock have said incremental steps will not be enough to meaningfully reduce exposure. That pressure is captured in reporting that the government has yet to finalize its response, with some in cabinet still backing tight restrictions and others favoring a tempered approach that aligns with new age-based social media limits. You can read more in this overview of how crossbench politicians and gambling harm advocates are urging the government to follow through on a ban.

Albanese signals enforcement and funding realities

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has publicly questioned the practicality of an outright ban, warning that poorly designed rules could shift betting activity offshore and deprive Australia of tax revenue while failing to reduce harm. He has also cited the role that gambling money plays in funding sports and media, a political and economic constraint that has frustrated reformers and complicated any one-size-fits-all solution. That argument highlights two core challenges. First, enforcement across global platforms is uneven, and loopholes can undermine domestic rules. Second, revenue dependence creates resistance from stakeholders who fear sudden shortfalls. The government has said it will move on gambling policy by year-end, but the shape and pace of those reforms remain uncertain. For the prime minister’s stance and context on the timeline, see this report on why the PM says a gambling ad ban would be hard to enforce.

Media companies seek parity — or payment

With regulatory risk rising, media companies are positioning for outcomes that either compensate them for lost revenue or ensure they are not disadvantaged against tech platforms. Nine Entertainment, one of the country’s largest media groups, told investors that if a ban proceeds, government should apply the rules evenly across sectors and consider offsets for domestic firms. Outgoing Chair Catherine West argued that uneven rules would shift ad dollars offshore and harm local journalism. Although Nine says gambling ads are a small and declining share of its revenue, the stance underscores how a ban would reverberate through balance sheets and the broader advertising market. The message to Canberra: if policymakers tighten limits, they should do so consistently and with a plan for collateral impacts. Read the company’s position in this account of how an Australian media group’s outgoing chair is seeking compensation if gambling ads are banned.

Streaming loopholes expose regulatory gaps

Regulation is also chasing technology. The media watchdog is examining whether Disney+ breached rules by carrying wagering promotions during ESPN sports streams. An exemption that limits daytime betting ads on low-audience subscription sports channels may not translate cleanly to a mass-market streaming platform with millions of subscribers. Disney argues it is compliant and points to parental controls. The Australian Communications and Media Authority is testing whether simulcast definitions and legacy carve-outs still work in an era of apps and on-demand viewing. The episode illustrates the enforcement challenge flagged by the prime minister and the risk that partial rules drive advertising to less regulated channels. It also adds weight to advocates’ calls for a simpler, comprehensive framework that treats like services alike. Details of the probe are in this report on the media regulator’s investigation into Disney+ gambling ads during ESPN streams.

Politics, access and the optics of influence

Beyond policy design, the influence economy around sport and wagering faces scrutiny. Independent Senator David Pocock refused an invitation to rejoin the Australian Parliament Sports Club after objecting to a AU$2,500 sponsorship from industry group Responsible Wagering Australia. He called it a case of gambling lobbyists buying informal access to lawmakers. Other MPs also quit in protest. The club denies it engages in lobbying, but it had appeared on the federal lobbyist register and now plans to seek removal. The episode illustrates how soft-power channels — sponsorships, social clubs, hospitality — can blur lines between stakeholder engagement and influence, especially as parliament weighs reforms that could reshape a lucrative advertising category. The backlash shows how public opinion, already tilted toward tighter controls, is pressuring institutions to avoid even the appearance of conflict. More on the fallout is here: an Australian senator rejects returning to a sports club over a gambling lobby sponsor.

What ties the threads together

The Finch–36 Months connection does not prove cause and effect, but it spotlights a central tension shaping the next phase of reform. As Canberra weighs youth safety measures, any slowdown on gambling advertising curbs invites questions about priorities and influence, especially when creative agencies with betting clients surface in adjacent policy campaigns. Advocates are using that incongruity to argue that partial measures — whether age gates on social platforms or time-of-day limits on ads — will not meaningfully reduce exposure for children. Media firms counter that abrupt bans risk unintended consequences if rules do not cover global platforms and streaming services. Regulators, meanwhile, are probing gray areas that did not exist when current exemptions were written.

The stakes are high. A comprehensive ban would force sports codes, broadcasters and digital platforms to replace revenue streams and rethink sponsorships. A narrower package risks pushing ads into less regulated spaces and eroding public trust. The decisions ahead will determine whether Australia aligns its child-safety and gambling-harm agendas or keeps them on parallel tracks, with loopholes bridging the gap. The backstory shows why the outcome will hinge not only on evidence and enforcement but also on perceptions of fairness and independence across politics, media and industry.