Australian media regulator investigates Disney+ gambling ads

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2025/10/17: Australian media regulator blocks seven illegal online gambling sites 2025/11/10: Australian media group’s outgoing chair seeks compensation if gambling ads are banned 2025/04/16: Australian politicians gifted AU$245,000 worth of sports tickets while mulling ban on online sports betting ads 2025/06/09: Australian regulator warns betting companies over self-exclusion breaches

The Backstory

Why a streaming loophole is under scrutiny

The Australian Communications and Media Authority’s review of gambling advertising on Disney+ crystallizes an unresolved question in media regulation: when a pay-TV sports channel is simulcast on a mass-market streaming platform, do legacy exemptions still apply. The exemption at issue was designed for low-audience subscription television sports channels, historically shielding certain daytime wagering spots from the broader ban. ESPN qualified when it lived behind traditional pay-TV walls. Once ESPN content appeared on Disney+ in March, the same promotions reached a much larger consumer base, prompting the regulator to assess whether the pay-TV carve-out was effectively enlarged by a product bundling and distribution decision.

ACMA has signaled it views the exemption narrowly, applying to services identical to licensed subscription television streams, not to wholesale expansions through standalone streaming hubs. That stance tracks with the watchdog’s recent posture: a willingness to test the boundaries of advertising, responsible gambling and platform obligations across a converging media ecosystem. The current review sits at the junction of competition in sports rights, shifting viewer habits and a policy framework built for linear channels, not global apps.

An enforcement drumbeat in online gambling

The inquiry arrives against a backdrop of stepped-up enforcement. In October, ACMA ordered internet service providers to block seven more illegal gambling websites, part of a sustained campaign against unlicensed operators. Since the first blocking request in November 2019, the regulator says 1,338 illegal gambling and affiliate sites have been blocked and about 220 services have exited the Australian market. The latest action, which targeted brands including Crown Gold, Maxispin Casino and Rain.gg, underscored ACMA’s message that unauthorized platforms lack consumer protections and pose higher risks of fraud and financial harm. Read more on the latest blocking push in ACMA’s move to cordon off seven illegal online gambling sites.

This record of enforcement matters for the streaming question: the regulator has been consistent in trying to close gaps that expose consumers to harm, whether those gaps arise from offshore sites or from distribution changes that amplify advertising reach. The investigation into Disney+ is not a departure from that trajectory; it is a logical next venue.

Self-exclusion breaches sharpen the focus on duty of care

ACMA has also escalated pressure on licensed operators to honor self-exclusion commitments. The National Self-Exclusion Register, known as BetStop, requires betting companies to close accounts and halt marketing to registrants. Yet recent investigations found lapses at multiple firms. ACMA warned four betting companies — Buddybet, Ultrabet, Topbet and VicBet — for failures ranging from not closing accounts to sending prohibited promotions. Buddybet exited the market, Ultrabet agreed to court-enforceable undertakings, and VicBet and Topbet received formal warnings. Details are in the regulator’s latest compliance actions over BetStop breaches.

The scrutiny intensified with a remedial direction to ReadyBet after the operator sent 273 texts and in-app messages to self-excluded individuals and failed to promote BetStop in more than 2,000 push notifications. ACMA ordered an external audit and staff retraining, with the threat of civil penalties for any noncompliance. See the agency’s steps in the ReadyBet remedial direction and the redacted directive published by the regulator here. For consumers, BetStop’s parameters are outlined on ACMA’s official page, including how self-exclusion periods work and what services must do upon registration; more information is available on the BetStop site.

These cases underscore the regulator’s priority: reducing the exposure of vulnerable consumers to targeted gambling promotions. That priority informs ACMA’s skepticism toward any expansion of advertising reach created by platform changes rather than policy intent.

Policy limbo and political pressure

The regulatory context is complicated by a stalled federal debate over a broader crackdown on gambling advertising. A 2023 parliamentary inquiry recommended a complete ban, but the government removed the issue from its 2024 legislative agenda, deferring any decision until after the election. Meanwhile, a Reuters analysis showed politicians received about AU$245,000 in complimentary sports tickets between June 2023 and March 2025, including AU$29,000 worth for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, while the advertising ban was under consideration. The optics amplified concerns about lobbying and “soft diplomacy.” The episode is outlined in coverage of politicians accepting high-value sports tickets during the ad-ban debate.

The federal pause leaves agencies like ACMA to define the contours of compliance through case-by-case enforcement. In the absence of new statutory rules, questions such as whether a pay-TV exemption should extend to a mainstream streaming service are being answered in real time by the regulator’s interpretations and actions.

Media industry stakes and calls for a level field

For domestic media, the advertising outlook is intertwined with competition from global platforms. Nine Entertainment’s outgoing chair Catherine West told shareholders that if a ban proceeds, it must apply evenly across all sectors or risk shifting dollars offshore to tech giants. She also argued that if domestic firms lose wagering revenue while global platforms retain access, taxpayers should consider compensation or offsets. Her remarks are recapped in our report on Nine’s appeal for fairness and potential compensation. The Canberra Times also detailed the stance in a piece on media giants seeking compensation if gambling ads are banned.

The Disney+ case tests that fairness argument from another angle. If ESPN’s pay-TV exemption were effectively transplanted to a platform with millions of subscribers, domestic broadcasters could claim uneven enforcement when they adhere to stricter timing rules on free-to-air and some subscription channels. Conversely, if ACMA confines the exemption to traditional distribution, streaming aggregators face tighter constraints, potentially narrowing their ad inventory for live sports.

A converging market meets legacy rules

ACMA’s actions across the sector — from blocking illegal sites to disciplining licensed operators and probing streaming practices — point to a coherent theme: the regulator is trying to align outcomes with the policy objective of harm minimization, even as technology blurs lines between pay-TV, over-the-top streaming and social media-style distribution. Recent fines, such as the AU$4 million penalty against Tabcorp on June 18, 2025 for spam law breaches referenced in ACMA’s ReadyBet notice, reinforce that compliance failures now carry heavier costs.

The Disney+ review could become a reference point for how exemptions travel across platforms. If the agency determines that simulcasts on a high-reach streamer cannot inherit a low-audience carve-out, streaming services will need to adapt their live sports ad stacks to match broadcast-era protections. That outcome would also give policymakers a de facto template while larger reforms remain on hold.

Either way, the stakes go beyond one app. The decision will signal how Australia intends to police gambling advertising in a market where live sports, rights holders and distributors increasingly straddle multiple delivery pipes. For operators and media companies, clarity will shape product design, sponsorships and compliance costs. For consumers — especially those on BetStop — it will help determine how visible gambling promotions are when the game is on, no matter the screen.