Tabcorp fined AU$158,400 for taking illegal sports bets
Australian gambling operator Tabcorp has been fined AU$158,400 (US$112,255)1 AUD = 0.7087 USD
2026-02-12Powered by CMG CurrenShift by the Australian Communications and Media Authority for accepting online in-play bets, which are placed after a sporting event has started.
This violates the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, which prohibits any Australian gambling operator from accepting bets on a sporting event after it has commenced.
An investigation by the regulator found that between February 2024 and June 2025, Tabcorp accepted 426 in-play bets on 32 tennis matches. The bets that were found to violate the Gambling Act 2001 were voided, and customers were refunded.
Speaking about the breach, which was the third time Tabcorp had illegally accepted in-play bets, Australian Communications Media Authority member Carolyn Lidgerwood said, “The law is clear, and wagering services must have processes in place to prevent illegal in-play bets from being accepted. While we understand that most wagering operators rely on third-party providers to close betting on sporting events, they cannot outsource their legal responsibilities.”
In addition to the financial penalty, Tabcorp has agreed to a comprehensive enforceable undertaking, which means the company must review and improve its processes for closing betting markets, particularly for tennis, immediately before they commence. It must also provide regular progress reports to the Communications and Media Authority.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority recently classified prediction markets as gambling and, as a result, ordered internet providers to block access for Australians.
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.
Verticals:
Sectors:
Topics:
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
Why this breach matters now
Australia’s in-play wagering ban has been a bright line for nearly a quarter century under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. When a major bookmaker misprices that risk, it draws more than a fine. It tests the regulator’s resolve, the operator’s controls and the industry’s social license at a time of heightened scrutiny. Tabcorp’s latest penalty over in-play tennis bets lands as regulators broaden enforcement, politicians weigh tougher curbs on gambling promotion and courts probe whether VIP programs enabled harmful betting. The pattern shows why a seemingly narrow compliance failure can spill into executive accountability, advertising policy and litigation risk.
Regulatory fault lines widen
The in-play prohibition is among the most policed features of Australia’s online wagering rules, and Tabcorp’s repeat lapse underscores the compliance complexity as markets open and close in real time. ACMA’s insistence that operators cannot outsource legal responsibility reflects a tougher posture that extends beyond product mechanics. Earlier this year, the regulator hit Tabcorp for breaches far from the trading floor: sending thousands of direct messages to high-value customers without proper consent or opt-outs. In that case, the company accepted a AU$4 million penalty and agreed to an independent review of marketing systems and training, as detailed in ACMA fines Tabcorp for breaching spam laws. Together, the actions show an agency moving in tandem on multiple fronts — live betting controls, marketing conduct and even new categories such as prediction markets — to narrow the space for technical or procedural misses.
ACMA’s widening enforcement net
Tabcorp is not alone under the microscope. Regulators have pursued a string of cases against bookmakers over unsolicited promotions and failures tied to self-exclusion or responsible gambling safeguards. The AU$500,000 action against PointsBet over spam and self-exclusion breaches, referenced in ACMA’s enforcement update, signaled that VIP channels and “personalized” outreach do not sit outside the Spam Act. That theme is central to the pending Federal Court suit by a convicted fraudster who alleges that multiple operators failed to verify the source of funds and overlooked red flags while he gambled tens of millions of dollars. The filing targets VIP practices and the conduct of customer managers, arguing inducements continued as losses mounted. For detail on alleged shortcomings across several operators — including Tabcorp — see Sportsbet, Tabcorp, and Entain sued over responsible gambling failures in Australia. While civil litigation proceeds on a separate track from ACMA’s administrative regime, the narratives reinforce each other: system gaps in compliance can become evidence in court.
Executive pay and performance pressure
Compliance turbulence collides with a turnaround story led by a high-profile chief executive. Shareholders this month backed an additional long-term option grant for Gillon McLachlan, despite criticism from the Australian Shareholders Association that the package was “outlandish.” The company argues the options align incentives with a multi-year strategy focused on cost cuts, contract resets and a national tote plan by fiscal 2026. The backdrop is a share price that has more than doubled over the past year. The optics, though, are sensitive when fresh enforcement actions land. Read more in Tabcorp shareholders approve “outlandish” options deal for Chief Executive. The stakes are straightforward: sustained operational discipline underpins both the earnings case and the governance defense of aggressive incentive structures. Another compliance misstep risks compounding regulatory obligations — such as enforceable undertakings — while challenging the board’s claims that pay is tightly linked to risk-adjusted performance.
Advertising crackdown debate intensifies
Regulators are not the only actors raising pressure. Political momentum behind stricter advertising rules continues to build, driven by concerns about exposure during marquee sporting events. Former Tabcorp chief executive Elmer Funke Kupper used the AFL Grand Final to spotlight what he called an “invasion” of betting promotions and urged the government to move faster on reforms. For context, see Former Tabcorp exec criticizes government for gambling ads, which references his op-ed in the Australian Financial Review and government responses. His original argument, published in the AFR, pressed for more stringent guardrails around broadcast windows; the essay can be read at Stop letting gambling ads invade the AFL Grand Final. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has cautioned that an outright ban would be hard to enforce and could starve sports and media of funding or push bettors to illegal sites, as he told ABC News at Sanctions, gas and gambling: Anthony Albanese. For Tabcorp and its peers, the policy path matters: even incremental curbs on advertising inventory or inducements could reshape acquisition economics and elevate reliance on existing customers, putting added weight on compliance with marketing and VIP rules already in regulators’ sights.
What to watch next
Several threads will determine how costly this latest breach becomes in strategic terms. First, how quickly Tabcorp implements the enforceable undertaking to harden market-closure controls before events begin — especially in tennis, where start times and in-play momentum can be volatile. Second, whether ACMA widens its focus from individual incidents to systemic audits across products and communications, informed by its recent actions on spam and its stance that outsourcing is no shield. Third, outcomes in the Federal Court case over responsible gambling practices could set expectations — or liabilities — for verifying sources of funds and managing VIP incentives across the industry. Finally, the policy arc on gambling advertising could tighten faster than operators forecast if public and political pressure builds through another sporting season. Each development links back to the same balance sheet calculus: compliance costs now versus reputational, regulatory and litigation risks later.
The confluence of enforcement, litigation and policy debate suggests a higher baseline of operational friction for Australia’s betting sector. For Tabcorp, which has pitched a cleaner, growth-aligned story to investors, the task is to prove that revenue ambition can coexist with hard stops on risk. The law draws some of those lines, but execution — in code, in marketing workflows and in frontline judgment — will decide whether the next headline is about momentum or another avoidable miss.
