Australian regulator rules prediction markets are gambling

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2025/08/14: Australian gambling regulator bans prediction platform Polymarket 2025/10/17: Australian media regulator blocks seven illegal online gambling sites 2026/01/12: Tennessee regulator targets prediction markets in latest cease-and-desist orders 2026/01/22: Illegal gambling sites using Australian Open in recent promotions

The Backstory

How we got here

Australia’s decision to treat prediction markets as gambling did not arrive in a vacuum. It follows years of stepped-up enforcement under the country’s Interactive Gambling Act 2001 and growing friction at the intersection of crypto, social media and wagering. In August, the Australian Communications and Media Authority added crypto-enabled prediction platform Polymarket to a list of sites to be blocked by internet providers, grouping it with offshore casinos and slot sites after finding the company was targeting local users without a license. The move, detailed in our coverage of the ban on Polymarket and three other sites, signaled regulators’ view that event contracts look less like financial products and more like betting when they are offered to retail users, settled in tokens and promoted as a way to “bet” on politics or sports.

That enforcement push sits on a statutory backbone that predates crypto by decades. The Interactive Gambling Act, available in full at Australia’s Federal Register of Legislation, prohibits offering most online casino-style services to Australians and sets obligations for licensed wagering operators, including consumer protections and self-exclusion. You can read the act’s latest text here. Under the Telecommunications Act 1997, ACMA can request that internet service providers block offshore operators that breach the law.

The regulator’s stance on prediction markets coalesced as traffic swelled. Polymarket counted well over a million visits from Australia across late 2024 and early 2025, according to records cited by local media. ACMA’s classification of prediction markets as gambling and its subsequent blocking orders built on that evidence and on a widening campaign to wall off the offshore sector.

A widening net for illegal sites

Website blocking has become ACMA’s core tool against offshore gambling since 2017, yielding a running tally of more than 1,200 sites blocked and hundreds more exiting the market. In April 2025, ACMA moved against four additional operators after investigations found they contravened the Interactive Gambling Act. Our story on those actions, ACMA blocks four illegal gambling sites, detailed how orders to internet providers have been paired with consumer advisories urging bettors to verify licenses on the regulator’s register.

The agency also publishes periodic updates on fresh blocks and takedowns. Its running list of blocked services is maintained publicly; ACMA’s latest update is available on the ACMA website. Still, the offshore market remains resilient. Industry analysis estimated illegal offshore wagering at roughly AU$1.1 billion in 2023, about 15% of the national sector, underscoring the scale of the challenge even as domestic compliance tightens.

Polymarket’s global crosscurrents

ACMA’s ban came as other jurisdictions took a tougher line on the crypto prediction venue, with France, Switzerland and Belgium also restricting access. Yet the platform is simultaneously pursuing a path to legitimacy in the United States. As we reported, Polymarket has agreed to acquire a Commodity Futures Trading Commission-licensed exchange and clearing house, QCEX, in a US$112 million deal that could bring its contracts under federal derivatives rules.

The cross-border tension is central to ACMA’s position: if a service markets event contracts to consumers as bets, accepts crypto and skirts local licensing, Australia will treat it as illegal gambling regardless of how it is labeled elsewhere. That stance was reinforced by public records work in Australia. For broader context on how the regulator reached its conclusion on prediction markets, see Crikey’s freedom of information reporting that first surfaced the underlying analysis.

Influencers, platforms and the promotion problem

Enforcement has extended beyond operators to the marketing pipes that drive traffic to them. ACMA warned influencers in 2025 they could face fines up to AU$2.4 million for promoting illegal offshore gambling. Yet takedowns on major social platforms have lagged. Our reporting on Meta’s failure to remove illegal crypto gambling promotions documented how multiple posts touting a crypto casino remained up after user reports, with the company citing policy compliance and offering limited restrictions.

External reports have echoed the gap. Guardian Australia chronicled a high-profile case involving an influencer who promoted a crypto casino to hundreds of thousands of followers. That account of influencer marketing and Meta’s moderation response illustrates why ACMA has leaned on both promoters and platforms, not just operators, to curb access. The promotion dynamic matters for prediction markets too, given that these services often rely on viral content to seed liquidity and normalize wagering on real-world events.

Compliance pressure at home

Australia’s posture on offshore operators is paired with scrutiny of licensed firms. In July, ACMA fined Betchoice Corporation, trading as Unibet, more than AU$1 million for failures tied to the national self-exclusion register. Our story, Unibet fined over AU$1 million, detailed how more than 100,000 violations accumulated when accounts of self-excluded customers remained open for months and some former self-excluders were allowed to bet via old accounts. Alongside the civil penalty, ACMA secured a two-year undertaking requiring an independent review of the operator’s systems and refunds to affected customers.

That enforcement underscores the policy rationale behind treating prediction markets as gambling: to keep like-for-like activities within the licensed perimeter, where self-exclusion, age checks, antimoney laundering controls and recourse mechanisms apply. If prediction venues operate beyond that perimeter while competing for the same customers and event categories as regulated books, policymakers argue, consumer protections erode.

U.S. reverberations and the regulatory line

The implications are not limited to Australia. U.S. state gambling regulators have warned that prediction markets could undercut licensed sportsbooks if they migrate under commodities rules. In October, Pennsylvania’s top gaming regulator urged lawmakers to press the CFTC to rein in self-certified sports prediction contracts. Our coverage of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board’s letter pointed to risks around consumer confusion, match-fixing and weak responsible-gaming standards when wagers are framed as derivatives.

The Pennsylvania board’s formal submission to Washington, available in full as a public letter, highlights a regulatory fault line similar to the one ACMA just addressed. Australia’s classification brings clarity at home: prediction markets are gambling when offered to the public for profit and require a license or will be blocked. Whether U.S. authorities harmonize around that view—or devise a bespoke framework under federal commodities law—will shape how quickly these products evolve and where they can legally operate.

For now, ACMA’s approach aligns the treatment of prediction markets with the rest of Australia’s online wagering sector. It extends the country’s strategy of traffic-blocking, promotion controls and operator accountability to a fast-growing corner of speculative finance. The stakes are straightforward: if prediction markets walk and talk like betting for consumers, Canberra wants them to play by the same rules—or not at all.