Australia’s credit card betting ban found to have had limited effect on heavy gamblers

Abi Bray

3 December 2025 at 6:39am UTC-5

Source: CDC Gaming Reports

Email, LinkedIn, and more

New analysis from the economic research organization e61 Institute found that Australia’s 2024 ban on using credit cards for online wagering had minimal impact on the country’s heaviest gamblers.

According to The Guardian, most switched to ordinary transaction accounts and continued betting with little disruption.

Article continues below ad

The study showed average fortnightly spend among credit card users fell from just over AU$200 (US$132)1 AUD = 0.6603 USD
2025-12-03Powered by CMG CurrenShift to AU$0 (US$0.00)1 AUD = 0.6603 USD
2025-12-03Powered by CMG CurrenShift on credit cards, but remained about AU$150 (US$99)1 AUD = 0.6603 USD
2025-12-03Powered by CMG CurrenShift through transaction accounts. Researchers said that most had sufficient funds available to continue wagering without needing to borrow.

The report noted the reform did not address several loopholes, including cash advances, PayPal deposits, and personal loans. These options remained available, though researchers found heavy gamblers did not need to rely on them.

Co-author Adit Maitra said, “It’s not super clear that [the ban] has restricted borrowing to gamble in any sense.” He added that reductions in spending were mainly linked to casual gamblers who stopped due to inconvenience.

Article continues below ad

The research also raised doubts about other government initiatives. Only 30,000 people are currently registered with BetStop, despite government estimates that 400,000 Australians are high-risk gamblers.

Consumer advocate Lauren Levin said, “This government does a lot of bragging about everything it has done for gambling consumer protection, but those measures were only ever designed to be first steps.”

Australian MPs are currently putting pressure on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in a push for an online gambling ban as the 2025 year is set to close without a response to the report.

Abi Bray brings strong researching skills to the forefront of all of her writing, whether it’s the newest slots, industry trends or the ever changing legislation across the U.S, Asia and Australia, she maintains a keen eye for detail and a passion for reporting.

View Abi Bray's bio and articles.

Locations:

Verticals:

Sports Betting

Sectors:

Topics:

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

Why this matters now

Australia’s prohibition on credit card gambling was pitched as a clean brake on borrowing to bet. The latest analysis suggests something narrower happened: heavy users largely shifted funding to ordinary transaction accounts and kept playing. That raises an uncomfortable policy question resonating beyond Australia’s borders: do card bans meaningfully curb risk, or do they mostly add friction for casual bettors while serious players route around them? The answer matters as more regulators weigh similar restrictions, operators face stiffer enforcement and payments innovators offer new tools that could blunt or amplify the intended effects of bans.

A regional push to curb card-funded wagering

Lawmakers in New Zealand are moving ahead with a fresh framework for online casinos that would prohibit credit card payments as part of a bid to win broader support for licensing up to 15 operators by late 2026. Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden framed the move as harm minimization, saying the goal is to reduce the odds that online casino play pushes people into debt. The package, covered in detail in reporting on New Zealand’s proposed credit card ban for online casinos, also lifts gambling duty to 16% and diverts a quarter of that revenue to the Lottery Grants Board. The question hanging over Wellington is whether card prohibitions affect total spend or simply rechannel it across other rails, a tension Australia’s experience now spotlights.

Maine is testing that same balance in sports wagering. State Rep. Marc Malon’s Legislative Document 2080 would block credit card use for online bets, echoing the state’s approach to slot machines at brick-and-mortar casinos. Malon argues the rule targets the mechanism that lets people gamble beyond their means. The proposal arrives as Maine broadens legalization, including authorizing the Wabanaki Nations to operate igaming, and reflects a familiar calculus: expand the market but layer on safeguards. The contours appear in coverage of Maine’s bid to ban credit cards for online sports betting, where supporters frame cards as uniquely risky compared with cash or bank transfers.

Taken together, New Zealand and Maine show how policymakers are converging on payment-specific levers to address harm. Australia’s early readout complicates the narrative, suggesting the heaviest cohort can bankroll wagers from deposits rather than revolving credit. That does not erase the consumer protection logic — preventing new debt creation is still a win for some households — but it underscores why design details and enforcement matter.

Enforcement shows the limits — and costs

Massachusetts offers a clear look at enforcement when operators fall short. The state banned credit card funding for sports betting at launch in 2023, yet DraftKings accepted impermissible deposits that led to 1,160 wagers by 218 customers. Regulators responded with a US$450,000 penalty, repayment requirements and an audit sweep of the operator’s early days in the market. The case, detailed in reporting on the Massachusetts fine against DraftKings, is the largest sports betting sanction there to date and signals how seriously payment controls are treated.

The Massachusetts episode is instructive for jurisdictions weighing new prohibitions. Rules that hinge on blocking specific funding sources place operational burdens on compliance teams, risk engines and vendor integrations. A single misconfiguration or lag in disabling a card code can translate into thousands of transactions and headline penalties. That dynamic amplifies the stakes in Australia’s debate: a ban on its face is simple, but its effectiveness — and the industry’s cost to police it — depends on granular execution.

Workarounds and new rails

Even as governments regulate the cards themselves, the payment landscape is changing. One entrant, Edge Markets, built a dedicated checking account and single-use Visa debit card restricted to gambling transactions, pitched as a way to separate bankrolls, improve transparency and ease funding for high-value customers who face limits or friction across banks and wallets. As outlined in analysis of Edge Markets’ single-use Visa model, the product aims to reduce operator integration headaches by riding the Visa network while constraining spend to a specific purpose.

For regulators, that kind of “compliant convenience” cuts both ways. Ring-fenced gambling accounts can help with know-your-customer checks and transaction tracing, but they may also blunt the deterrent effect of card bans by giving sophisticated players an easy alternative to finance play from cash balances. Australia’s experience — where heavy bettors simply switched to transaction accounts — suggests tools like these could entrench that shift. The policy pivot then becomes less about blocking a card type and more about caps, cooling-off rules and real-time affordability checks tuned to customer risk.

High rollers, higher risks

The distribution of spend matters as much as the rail it rides. In Australia, investor scrutiny of customer concentration sharpened after PointsBet told the market that a rival suitor, Betr, generated more than half its January gambling profit from just 20 customers. PointsBet urged shareholders to back a competing bid, warning that a VIP-heavy model is volatile and could pull greater regulatory attention. The debate is captured in coverage of PointsBet’s rejection of Betr’s takeover, which also notes PointsBet’s own recent compliance setbacks.

Why it matters for payment policy: bans that primarily inconvenience casual or moderate bettors risk leaving the spend curve intact at the top end, where harm risk and AML obligations are concentrated. That is especially salient as Australia weighs broader curbs on advertising and as lawmakers press Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for a stronger response to online gambling risks by year’s end. If most losses and margin come from a thin VIP band, interventions aimed at funding methods may need reinforcement from targeted measures that address pace of play, incentives and affordability for that cohort.

What to watch next

New Zealand’s Parliament is expected to revisit the Online Casino Bill before year-end, with the credit card ban a key trade-off to secure votes. Maine’s proposal will test whether a state already familiar with retail card restrictions extends them to mobile betting as its igaming market grows. In the United States, more commissions are likely to emulate Massachusetts’ posture as they mature oversight of payment controls.

For Australia, the next phase is less about whether a card ban exists and more about whether broader consumer-protection architecture can reach those most at risk. That could mean tightening loopholes in deposit channels, scaling self-exclusion beyond the small share now enrolled and pressing operators on VIP governance. The early findings show policy can stop debt-funded wagers. They also show that without deeper constraints, committed bettors will keep playing — just on different rails.