Australia’s gambling sector is facing renewed scrutiny as questions around advertising, regulation and player protection continue to divide government, industry and gambling reform advocates.
Public concern over gambling promotion remains high, with polling showing around 76% to 77% of Australians support a complete advertising ban. Campaigners continue to push for stronger measures based on the 2023 Murphy report, which contained 31 recommendations.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Labor government has resisted a blanket advertising ban, instead pursuing partial restrictions including a three-per-hour gambling advertising cap.
Consumer Champion head Adam Glezer has now added to the criticism through a report examining Australia’s regulatory environment, with the national self-exclusion register BetStop forming a central part of his concerns.
Low BetStop awareness raises questions about player protection
One of the clearest issues surrounding BetStop is awareness. Australian Institute of Family Studies research found only 26.5% of Australian adults knew the national self-exclusion register existed. Separate research found only one in three gamblers knew of the service.
Glezer has also questioned the financial position of Dataworks, the company operating BetStop. Dataworks shares have fallen significantly since its 2017 IPO, when they traded at around AU$6.43, compared with approximately AU$0.12 currently.
The company recorded a statutory loss after tax of $2.25m in FY26, improving from a $10.03m loss in FY25. Its cash balance stood at $651,308 on 30 June. More recent updates show firm commitments for a $3m placement alongside an entitlement offer targeting up to another $1.24m.
Glezer said “its long term prospects don’t fill me with confidence”. Dataworks governance also came under examination because non-executive director Ian Penrose simultaneously served as senior independent director at gambling technology supplier Playtech.
“Ian sits on the board of Dataworks, which runs BetStop, and the board of Playtech, a gambling technology giant,” Glezer told SBC News. “Working in BetStop’s interest cuts against Playtech’s bottom line, and vice versa. There’s no way to spin that as anything but a conflict of interest.”
Dataworks rejected that interpretation and confirmed Penrose is leaving Playtech’s board after its FY26 results are published. “Dataworks has appropriate governance processes for identifying and managing any actual or potential conflicts involving its directors,” a spokesperson said.
“The company considers Ian’s extensive experience across regulated gaming, technology and corporate governance to be a benefit to Dataworks and to the development of effective player-protection technology. Dataworks does not operate wagering services.”
Enforcement record brings ACMA’s regulatory approach into focus
Australia has no single national gambling regulator. ACMA oversees areas of online wagering regulation, while other responsibilities remain divided between state and territory authorities.
The Murphy report recommended a national regulator, while Glezer argues the existing structure weakens enforcement.
He pointed to the contrast between penalties for marketing breaches and those connected directly with BetStop. Tabcorp paid $4m for spam breaches in June 2025 and $2.7m for spam and do-not-call breaches in July 2026. Sportsbet received a $2.5m settlement for spam breaches in February 2022.
At the time Glezer published his report, however, ACMA had issued only two financial penalties for BetStop breaches despite what he described as “at least a dozen distinct wagering operators [being] found in breach since BetStop’s launch”.
He also cited an Entain case involving more than 500 BetStop breaches. ACMA’s investigation exceeded the statutory 12-month period, preventing it from imposing a financial penalty.
“Fifteen companies have been caught breaching self exclusion, one of them, Unibet, over 100,000 times on its own, and only three have ever been fined. That’s not deterrence. That’s a licence to keep doing it,” Glezer said.
“It’s letting everyone know that a blind eye is turned to breaches in Australia, which only incentivises unscrupulous providers to keep doing it, as the risk is minimal.”
Advertising reforms leave government facing pressure from both sides
Albanese’s advertising proposals have disappointed campaigners seeking implementation of stronger Murphy report recommendations, while parts of the gambling and media industries have also challenged proposed restrictions.
Effective self-exclusion depends on consumers knowing the service exists, operators complying with exclusions and regulators responding quickly when breaches occur.
Glezer contrasted ACMA’s enforcement priorities directly: “Text a punter too often and you’ll pay. Take bets from someone who asked to be locked out and you might get a stern letter.”
ACMA issued its third settlement order for BetStop breaches this month, with Dabble receiving a $1.1m penalty.
BetStop’s future remains tied to enforcement and public confidence
Dataworks’ latest fundraising efforts may strengthen its financial position, while increased enforcement could address some concerns about whether BetStop obligations create sufficient consequences for operators.
The larger question is whether Australia’s fragmented regulatory structure can deliver consistent player protection.
BetStop is therefore becoming a practical test of the system. Registration alone cannot provide effective protection if awareness remains low or breaches are not addressed consistently.
Dataworks declined to enter the wider policy debate, telling SBC News: “Dataworks does not comment publicly on matters relating to the operation, promotion or policy settings of government programmes.”
With advertising reform contested, scrutiny will remain on whether Australia can make its responsible gambling measures work consistently in practice for consumers.
BetStop’s main challenge is not simply the existence of a national self-exclusion system, but how awareness, operator compliance and enforcement are strong enough to make it effective. Low consumer awareness and inconsistent penalties for breaches expose a wider weakness in Australia’s fragmented regulatory structure.
Explore more:
Share
2 views
