When Self-Exclusion Fails: What Recent BetStop Breaches Reveal About Online Gambling Controls

Australia’s national gambling self-exclusion register is meant to act as a hard stop for people trying to step away from betting. Once registered, access to online and phone wagering should be blocked across the board. Recent regulatory findings suggest that, in practice, that protection has not always held up.

Recent BetStop self-exclusion failures have raised concerns about how reliably online gambling platforms enforce safeguards designed to block access for people trying to stop gambling. 

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has confirmed that six licensed wagering providers breached rules linked to BetStop during 2024. The failures allowed self-excluded individuals to open accounts, access betting services, or receive gambling promotions despite having formally opted out.

The operators named were Tabcorp, LightningBet, Betfocus, TempleBet, Picklebet and BetChamps.

A Safeguard That Depends On Execution

BetStop was designed to remove friction for people seeking help. Rather than contacting individual bookmakers one by one, a single registration is meant to block access across all licensed online wagering services.

That design, however, relies entirely on wagering providers accurately identifying excluded individuals and continuously enforcing those exclusions. The regulator’s investigations show that this chain broke down in multiple ways.

In some cases, excluded individuals were able to create new accounts by entering personal details that did not exactly match the information held on the register. In others, marketing systems failed to suppress promotions sent to people who should never have been contacted.

The most serious cases involved people being able to gamble shortly after an operator had been notified of their exclusion, raising concerns about how exclusion data is processed in real time.

What The Complaints Revealed

ACMA’s investigations were triggered by complaints from nine individuals who had signed up to BetStop believing it would block their access to betting. Instead, they discovered gaps.

Some complainants were able to open fresh wagering accounts. Others found betting platforms still accessible, or received emails promoting upcoming races or betting offers.

While the circumstances varied, the regulator found a common thread: internal systems intended to prevent these outcomes were either misconfigured, insufficiently monitored, or overly dependent on exact data matches.

Why Timing Matters

One of the more troubling aspects of the findings is that the breaches did not occur during BetStop’s launch phase. The self-exclusion framework has been operating for more than two years, meaning operators have had time to test, refine, and harden their compliance systems.

The regulator noted that ongoing monitoring is just as important as initial account checks. Where systems fail to reassess customer data or flag inconsistencies, excluded individuals can slip back into betting environments with little resistance.

Different Breaches, Different Penalties

ACMA took a tailored approach to enforcement rather than issuing uniform penalties.

Tabcorp faced the most serious outcome, paying a $112,680 penalty and entering into a court-enforceable undertaking. This requires the company to commission an independent review of its customer verification processes and improve staff training around self-exclusion obligations.

Other operators received remedial direction notices, which legally require independent audits of internal systems and the implementation of any recommended fixes. Failure to comply with those directions could result in further regulatory action.

One operator received a formal warning after promotional material was sent to a self-excluded individual, while enforcement action against Picklebet has yet to be finalised.

What This Means For People Trying To Stop Gambling

Self-exclusion is often used at a point of real vulnerability. For people dealing with gambling harm, even brief access to betting platforms can undermine attempts to stop.

These cases show why tools available to help limit or stop gambling only work when wagering providers enforce self-exclusion properly.

When enforcement is inconsistent, responsibility shifts back onto individuals who are already seeking protection, the opposite of what the system is intended to achieve.

Betstop Under Ongoing Review

BetStop was launched nationally in 2023 after years of legislative delays. As of late 2025, around 30,000 people had registered.

Regulators have previously acknowledged that some individuals may actively attempt to bypass exclusions, particularly when addiction is involved. That reality places an even greater responsibility on wagering providers to maintain robust identity checks, monitoring processes, and marketing controls.

ACMA has indicated that future breaches could attract stronger action, including Federal Court proceedings, if operators fail to meet their obligations.

A Reminder Of What’s At Stake

Australia continues to record some of the highest gambling losses per capita globally, with annual losses estimated at more than $31.5 billion across all forms of gambling.

Against that backdrop, self-exclusion remains one of the few mechanisms that gives individuals direct control over their access to betting. When it fails, confidence in the broader harm-minimisation framework is weakened.

For wagering providers, the message from the regulator is clear: self-exclusion is not a technical feature to be ticked off. It is a safety system relied upon by people trying to change their behaviour, and failures will continue to draw close scrutiny.