New Zealand Problem Gambling Foundation urges tighter controls on offshore casino ads

Dig Deeper

The Backstory

A licensing push collides with an advertising problem

New Zealand’s move to regulate online casinos was designed to pull gambling activity out of a largely offshore market and into a supervised system. The current dispute over offshore casino advertising shows how difficult that transition may be. Before the first licenses are issued, harm-prevention advocates are warning that operators seeking New Zealand customers have already learned how to reach them through social media, influencers, inducements and other channels that are harder to police than traditional advertising.

The policy tension is straightforward: The government wants a licensed online casino market that can be monitored, taxed and subjected to local harm-minimization standards. But the same opening also creates a commercial race for visibility before and during licensing. If offshore operators can build brand recognition while enforcement remains uneven, advocates argue they may enter the regulated market with an advantage gained through conduct that New Zealand law already seeks to restrict.

That concern has grown as the Department of Internal Affairs prepares to oversee a limited licensing regime. The agency is not only expected to vet operators and enforce future license conditions, but also to act now against companies accused of targeting New Zealanders before the new market is fully in place. The credibility of the regime may depend on whether it can do both.

Regulators have already tested their reach

The clearest recent example involved 20Bet, a Cyprus-registered gambling site accused of marketing sports betting and casino products to New Zealand customers. The Department of Internal Affairs formally told the company to stop targeting residents after YouTube ads promoted betting and slots with messages directed at “Kiwis,” according to RNZ. The action followed June measures making it illegal for overseas betting operators to accept bets from inside New Zealand and came alongside take-down notices aimed at influencers promoting offshore casino sites.

That case, detailed in New Zealand’s order for 20Bet to stop targeting residents, illustrated the enforcement challenge. New Zealand law bans the promotion of overseas gambling, and sports betting remains limited to TAB. But offshore operators often sit outside easy regulatory reach. A cease-and-desist letter can signal intent, yet the practical effect depends on whether a foreign company complies, whether platforms remove advertisements and whether promoters can be deterred from reappearing under new arrangements.

The Problem Gambling Foundation has pointed to that gap in calling for greater resources and clearer enforcement. Its argument is not only that illegal ads can trigger relapse or attract new players, but that weak enforcement undermines the pending licensing process. If advertising conduct is not considered in suitability assessments, operators that ignored local restrictions may face little consequence once they bid for legal access.

The market design is already contested

The advertising dispute is unfolding against a broader fight over how open New Zealand’s online casino market should be. The government plans to allow up to 15 online casino licenses, with an auction process and suitability checks. Licenses are expected to be time-limited and tied to specific platforms or brands. That structure is meant to create a regulated market while avoiding unlimited entry.

Incumbent operators have pushed for a narrower model. SkyCity Entertainment Group, which operates land-based casinos in New Zealand and Australia, has argued for a cap of five licenses and said they should be restricted to locally incorporated companies. TAB has also urged a smaller market, warning that foreign operators could dominate online casino gambling, weaken domestic gambling products and divert profits offshore.

Internal Affairs Minister Brooke van Velden has resisted that framing, saying the government’s role is to create a fair, regulated marketplace rather than protect incumbents. As reported in SkyCity’s call for New Zealand to limit online gaming licenses, she also raised the risk that favoring domestic companies could conflict with New Zealand’s trade obligations. That position leaves the door open to major international brands, including some already active with New Zealand customers.

The result is a market that is restricted but not protectionist. That distinction matters for advertising. If offshore operators are eligible to bid, their past marketing behavior becomes a central regulatory question. The government must decide whether prior conduct is merely a feature of an unregulated market or evidence of risk that should weigh against suitability.

Suitability questions extend beyond marketing

The government has indicated that even companies facing legal claims may be able to apply. In parliamentary committee hearings, officials said the Online Casino Gambling Act 2026 does not automatically bar offshore operators involved in litigation. Van Velden said decisions would be made under the statute and its rules rather than through ministerial discretion.

That position was outlined in the report on offshore operators facing lawsuits being allowed to apply for New Zealand licenses. The approach gives the Department of Internal Affairs and licensing officials significant responsibility. Applicants will need to pass suitability checks before advancing to auction, but the law appears to emphasize structured assessment over categorical exclusion.

For harm-prevention groups, that creates a key test. Suitability is not only about corporate solvency or technical capability. It can also involve compliance culture, willingness to follow local rules and the operator’s approach to vulnerable customers. If companies have used inducements, influencers or targeted digital advertising despite restrictions, advocates want that record examined before any license is granted.

The stakes are heightened by the transitional timetable. Existing providers may operate only under limited arrangements until the market fully shifts to licensed status. Operators that do not obtain approval will be expected to leave. In that interim period, every enforcement decision signals how strict the new system will be once licenses are awarded.

Major operators are positioning early

Large international gambling companies are preparing for the regulated market. Entain, which already holds New Zealand’s exclusive license for online racing and sports betting through its TAB arrangement, has reorganized its local leadership and said it intends to bid for multiple online casino licenses. The company is positioning itself as a full-service gambling operator as the market opens.

That strategy was underscored in Entain’s New Zealand leadership overhaul before the online casino launch. The company created a managing director role focused on New Zealand, citing the country’s specific challenges and the coming online casino regime. Its interest reflects the commercial value of the licenses, particularly in a market where only 15 may be available and each operator can hold up to three.

Other global brands, including Stake and Betway, have also been linked to the process. Strong bidding interest suggests the licenses are valuable despite regulatory limits. Reports that bidding reached NZ$15 million per license show operators view legal access to New Zealand customers as worth significant upfront cost.

That commercial pressure helps explain why advertising has become such a sensitive issue. In a capped market, early brand awareness can matter. Operators that are already known to consumers may have an advantage when legal play begins. If that awareness was built through ads or promotions that regulators consider unlawful, the licensing process will be scrutinized for whether it rewards or penalizes such behavior.

The broader lesson from other markets

New Zealand is not alone in trying to balance channelization with harm prevention. Other jurisdictions have found that advertising policy can either support regulated markets or push players toward illegal ones. A complete ban on licensed advertising can leave offshore operators as the only visible brands, while overly permissive advertising can increase harm and political backlash.

A recent analysis of the Philippines argued that a total gambling advertising ban could hand market share back to illegal operators because licensed companies would be silenced while offshore sites continued to promote through digital channels. The piece, examining gambling advertising bans across five countries, framed the central trade-off as one between gambling the state can see and gambling it cannot.

New Zealand’s debate is different because the issue is not a proposed blanket ban on all licensed advertising. The country is instead confronting offshore promotion before a regulated market is fully operational. Still, the lesson is relevant: advertising controls must be enforceable against the actors causing the harm. Rules that bind compliant licensees but fail to reach illegal or offshore promoters can distort the market and weaken consumer protection.

For New Zealand, the immediate question is whether the Department of Internal Affairs has the tools and resources to stop unlawful targeting now and to incorporate that conduct into future licensing decisions. The longer-term question is whether the new regime can make licensed operators visible enough to channel players into supervised platforms while preventing the aggressive inducements and targeting that harm advocates say have already become common.