Bangladesh accuses ESPN of breaching online gambling advertising laws

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2025/06/18: ACMA fines Tabcorp for breaching spam laws 2025/04/28: Bangladesh High Court orders government to ban online gambling ads 2025/05/29: Bangladesh launches online gambling crackdown 2025/10/01: Philippine Senator accuses Government Service Insurance System of ignoring social cost of gambling investment

The Backstory

An escalating campaign in Bangladesh

Bangladesh has moved from warnings to action on digital gambling promotion, setting the backdrop for today’s developments. Authorities have combined court orders, new cyber rules and police operations to choke off marketing channels and payments that fuel offshore betting. That pressure recently extended to international publishers: the National Cyber Security Agency issued a legal notice to ESPN Sports Media Group on Oct. 12 accusing its cricket site of carrying ads linked to gambling and violating the Cyber Safety Ordinance 2025, while also questioning local tax compliance. The agency warned that ESPNcricinfo could be blocked in Bangladesh if it does not remove betting content and confirm compliance within seven working days.

The ESPN notice did not emerge in isolation. It followed a drumbeat of judicial directives and enforcement moves aimed at closing loopholes that allow offshore operators to advertise to Bangladeshi users through mainstream sites and social networks. Officials have repeatedly framed the campaign as a response to social harm, with a stated focus on curbing youth exposure, addiction risk and unregulated money flows.

With platforms and advertisers on notice, government agencies are testing how far they can push jurisdiction over foreign media and tech intermediaries that monetize local traffic. That jurisdictional reach—and the willingness to use it—has become the central tension for international outlets operating in Bangladesh’s digital ad economy.

Courts set the tone for a ban

The judiciary laid the foundation for the crackdown. In an order that challenged executive inaction, the High Court directed the government to ban online gambling ads and convene a seven-member committee spanning culture, home affairs, ICT and police to design enforcement steps. The panel was given 90 days to report back, and the bench questioned whether officials’ failure to move against promotion of gambling should be deemed unlawful. The directive underscored that all advertising pathways—from mainstream media to social platforms—were in scope.

The court tightened the timetable weeks later, ordering agencies to file an affidavit within 30 days detailing progress on policing online gambling promotion and asking why a 24/7 monitoring team should not be mandated. The ruling named multiple ministries, the telecom regulator and the Inspector General of Police as respondents, signaling shared accountability. The judges’ stance drew a clear line: under the constitution and criminal code, all forms of gambling are illegal in Bangladesh, making promotional activity a public enforcement priority.

These orders reshaped incentives for platforms and ad networks. Compliance became not just a commercial choice but a legal obligation, with the threat of blocks, fines and reputational damage. For global publishers with significant Bangladesh audiences, the court’s timeline compressed the window to audit inventory, identify indirect ad placements and tighten controls on programmatic demand sources that might carry betting creatives.

From orders to enforcement

Police moved quickly to translate court direction into on-the-ground pressure. The Criminal Investigation Department launched one of the first actions under the Cyber Security Ordinance 2025, identifying more than 1,000 alleged agents tied to illegal gambling transactions and sharing names with Bangladesh Bank for follow-up. In public guidance, the CID warned about widespread online gambling among young people and the risks of addiction, criminal behavior and financial loss. Under the act, offenders face up to a two-year jail term and a substantial fine. The sweep made clear that enforcement would target both promoters and financial facilitators.

The focus on payments is significant. By aiming at local agents and banking channels, authorities seek to starve offshore operators and their advertisers of revenue, a tactic used in other jurisdictions to curb unlicensed gambling. The message to media platforms is that running betting promotions is not a victimless ad decision; it can implicate them in alleged facilitation and expose local business interests to regulatory risk.

For companies with sales or contractor footprints in Bangladesh, the CID’s posture raises due diligence stakes. Advertising and revenue flows that once felt distant from editorial operations are now under a microscope, with cross-functional compliance—legal, tax and ad tech—becoming critical to continuity in the market.

Platform liability and cross-border exposure

The ESPN case illustrates the new liability landscape. Regulators claim betting-related creatives appeared on a prominent sports news site and that the publisher benefited from ad revenue without proper registration or VAT compliance. The notice demanded takedowns, operational disclosures and confirmation of compliance—backed by the threat of blocking access in Bangladesh. While the company is London-lawyered and globally operated, the agency asserted domestic jurisdiction over content served to local users.

This approach mirrors a wider trend of regulators treating ad inventory as a service delivered in-country when users are domiciled there. It raises practical questions for programmatic advertising, where intermediaries and algorithms influence what appears on a page. In such systems, publishers must harden controls—updating blocklists, filtering demand partners and monitoring creatives—to ensure prohibited categories cannot slip through.

The case also surfaces tax and registration questions that often accompany content probes. When authorities examine ad conduct, they frequently look at monetization structures, VAT obligations and whether a platform’s local economic activity triggers reporting or licensing duties. That holistic scrutiny increases the compliance cost of maintaining Bangladesh audience reach without localized oversight.

Global regulators tighten the screws

Bangladesh’s push comes as regulators elsewhere escalate oversight of gambling marketing and customer protection, reinforcing a global pivot toward stricter standards. In Australia, the communications watchdog fined Tabcorp AU$4 million after it sent more than 5,700 messages to VIP customers that lacked clear sender details or an unsubscribe option. The agency said spam laws apply equally to generic and personalized outreach, an interpretation rooted in the Spam Act 2003. Tabcorp agreed to an independent review of its marketing systems and more staff training, while PointsBet was fined AU$500,000 in May for separate breaches.

For publishers and advertisers, the Australian actions underscore a broader compliance theme: marketing channels that target bettors are under heightened scrutiny for consent, transparency and consumer harm. Even in regulated markets, lapses draw significant penalties. That reinforces the risk calculus for platforms operating in stricter jurisdictions like Bangladesh, where gambling itself is illegal and promotional activity can trigger content, tax and criminal exposure.

Together, these moves suggest a regime shift from permissive to preventive controls, with governments ready to police both messaging and mechanics—who gets targeted, how they are messaged and what recourse they have to opt out.

Social costs enter the investment calculus

The policy debate is not limited to ads. In the Philippines, a Senate hearing put the social impact of online gambling at the center of an investment controversy. Senator Risa Hontiveros questioned the state pension fund’s PHP1 billion stake in DigiPlus, a listed online gambling company, pressing officials on whether social harms were weighed alongside profit, safety and liquidity. The fund’s chief defended the investment on financial grounds but said the agency was open to guidance or legal changes. The clash highlighted how social costs are becoming a boardroom and policy variable.

For global media and tech platforms, this shift matters. As lawmakers tie advertising rules to public health concerns, and as investors face pressure to account for social externalities, the bar for running or profiting from gambling-related content rises. Bangladesh’s courts and police are moving first on promotion and payments, while other countries are tightening consent and investor accountability. The combined effect narrows the space for compliance ambiguity.

Against that backdrop, the stakes for today’s players are clear: act quickly to audit ad pipelines, align with evolving legal expectations and engage regulators, or risk blocks, fines and reputational damage in markets where users and policymakers are demanding stronger guardrails.