Class-action lawsuit against Australia’s Sportsbet likely to expand after court order

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2025/11/28: Kalshi accused of providing ‘illegal sports betting’ in nationwide class action 2025/03/05: Flutter’s Aussie sportsbook Sportsbet reports Q4 declines on lower racing revenue, higher taxes 2025/03/13: Illegal offshore operators comprise 15% of Australian market, Sportsbet Chief Executive says 2025/12/11: Sportsbet, Tabcorp, and Entain sued over responsible gambling failures in Australia

The Backstory

Why a routine notice could reshape a high-stakes case

The class action against Sportsbet turns on a procedural detail with sweeping ramifications: the Supreme Court of Victoria’s order that affected customers are automatically included unless they opt out by Feb. 13. That notice requirement, common in Australian group proceedings, is pivotal because it turns a boutique case into a scale event. It forces broad disclosure, brings dormant claims to the surface and lifts the potential liability by orders of magnitude. The ruling also aligns with a yearslong push by plaintiffs to test the boundaries of in‑play betting workarounds. In this dispute, the focus is Sportsbet’s “fast codes,” a system that allegedly enabled live online wagering by embedding bet placement in a coded workflow meant to comply with the Interactive Gambling Act’s live betting restrictions. Sportsbet denies wrongdoing and argues its conduct was lawful, but the opt-out framework means the company must now address the claims at market scale rather than in a narrow dispute.

The stakes are financial and regulatory. The suit seeks refunds for all live bets placed with fast codes from 2018 to 2024 and could require successful claimants to repay winnings. The government is not a party, but the case’s outcome will inform how operators, plaintiffs and regulators interpret the live betting line. A similar arc is visible in the United States, where pressure points in gray zones between trading, sweepstakes and wagering are moving from policy debates into courtrooms.

A global pattern: gray areas under litigation

Recent cases in the U.S. show how product design choices can be recast as unlicensed gambling at scale. A nationwide class action accuses prediction market Kalshi of running illegal sports betting through “trading” contracts, with plaintiffs seeking restitution and damages. The complaint follows a wave of state action, including a Massachusetts suit and a Nevada ruling that exposed the platform to state gambling law. The core contention mirrors the Sportsbet fight: whether technical structuring converts an offering into something regulators already restrict.

Crypto‑anchored sweepstakes have met similar scrutiny. In Alabama, plaintiffs filed a class action alleging Stake.us operates an illegal gambling site under the guise of sweepstakes. The suit argues dual‑coin mechanics blur the distinction between consideration and chance. Alabama’s stricter regime could become a test case, much as Victoria’s opt‑out order could become a benchmark for consumer participation in Australia. Both actions show plaintiffs pressing courts to collapse perceived workarounds into established gambling definitions.

Regulators close gaps while signaling priorities

Enforcement bodies are also tightening guardrails. Tennessee, an online‑only market, has paired fines with targeted orders to push unlicensed or quasi‑licensed operators out of the state. After a cease‑and‑desist letter, social sportsbook Sportzino exited Tennessee’s sweepstakes betting space. The state’s Sports Wagering Council also published a consumer notice that Sportzino is no longer offering services in Tennessee, underscoring a message that accessibility does not equal legality. The campaign has included penalties against offshore operators and a public education strategy aimed at steering bettors to taxed, supervised sites.

That posture resonates with the Sportsbet dispute. While Australia’s legal framework differs, both environments feature regulators and courts working in tandem—regulators focus on market hygiene and consumer protection, while courts arbitrate boundaries where product design meets statutory prohibitions. The Victorian court’s opt‑out notice is not enforcement in itself, but it amplifies the consumer protection lens by broadening who gets a voice in the litigation.

Mainstream sportsbooks face courtroom tests too

Even licensed U.S. leaders are drawing legal fire over marketing and consumer safeguards. Baltimore officials sued DraftKings and FanDuel for allegedly violating a city ordinance by using offers that exploit vulnerable gamblers. The companies shifted the case to federal court, arguing jurisdiction and amount‑in‑controversy grounds, in a move that could reset the legal terrain. The removal filing positions the dispute for broader precedential impact as the lawsuit proceeds in Maryland federal court.

The thread to the Sportsbet case is not about in‑play coding but about the expanding definition of consumer harm and the scrutiny of mechanics used to attract or retain bettors. Plaintiffs and regulators are leaning into statutes that predate the mobile era yet can be applied to inducements, bonus structures and channel design. As courts entertain these claims, operators face a choice: narrow promotions and mechanics to avoid litigation risk or test the limits and accept heavier legal budgets and reserves.

Tax policy adds a second front of consumer tension

Fiscal pressure also feeds back into product strategy. In Illinois, FanDuel’s parent Flutter introduced a US$0.50 per‑wager surcharge to offset a progressive handle tax, a move analysts say rivals may mirror. The levy is framed as a pass‑through to cover higher operating costs and could push some customers to offshore sites, according to the company. The dynamic is detailed in an investor note after FanDuel’s Illinois user fee decision. Although tax and litigation are separate vectors, they converge in user experience: higher fees and stricter compliance can slow handle growth, while looser practices invite lawsuits and enforcement.

For Australia, the parallel is cautionary. If the Sportsbet class action expands and succeeds, operators may weigh tighter controls on live betting interfaces against potential share loss to rivals or offshore platforms. That calculus is similar to U.S. operators balancing taxes, compliance costs and competitive pressure. In both markets, decisions made to preserve margins can ripple into legal risk or regulatory scrutiny if they are seen as undermining consumer protection.

What to watch as the case widens

Three near‑term questions will shape outcomes. First, scale: the opt‑out regime could add thousands of claimants, increasing potential exposure and the likelihood of settlement talks. The broad notice requirement, highlighted in reporting by The Straight, sets the stage for a larger cohort after the court’s October order; see the outlet’s update on automatic inclusion and the opt‑out deadline for details on the notification process. Second, precedent: if courts accept that fast codes effectively facilitated online in‑play bets, product design defenses may weaken in future disputes across markets. Third, alignment: regulators globally are signaling a preference for bright lines over creative workarounds. Tennessee’s swift action on sweepstakes and the federal‑state positioning in cases like Kalshi and the Baltimore suit suggest a tougher environment for edge‑case products and promotions.

The Sportsbet case now doubles as a referendum on how far operators can go in engineering user flows around statutory limits. The legal theory is not new, but the opt‑out mechanism and the period covered give this test unusual reach. What happens next will inform how compliance teams architect live betting, how plaintiffs frame claims about consumer harm and how courts weigh innovation against intent. For a sector accustomed to iterating in gray space, the message is clear: design choices are evidence, not gloss.