BetStop Self-Exclusion Breaches Expose Gaps in Gambling Safeguard

BetStop self-exclusion breaches have placed Australia’s national gambling self-exclusion system under renewed scrutiny, after the communications regulator found multiple wagering companies failed to block customers who had asked to stop gambling.

An investigation by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) concluded that six licensed wagering providers breached rules linked to BetStop, the National Self-Exclusion Register. The breaches occurred throughout 2024 and involved people who had formally requested to exclude themselves from online and telephone betting but were still able to access gambling services.

The companies named in the investigations were Tabcorp, LightningBet, Betfocus, TempleBet, Picklebet and BetChamps. Each case involved different circumstances, but the regulator found a consistent failure across operators to properly identify and block self-excluded individuals.

Accounts Opened After Exclusion Notifications

One of the more concerning findings involved Picklebet, where a self-excluded individual was able to open a new wagering account just minutes after the operator had been notified by the BetStop register that the person was banned from gambling. The regulator said this pointed to how easily system controls could be bypassed.

In other cases, excluded individuals were allowed to create accounts using modified personal details that no longer matched the information held on the register. These inconsistencies meant automated checks failed to identify them as excluded customers.

The investigations were triggered by complaints from nine gamblers who had registered with BetStop but later discovered they could still gamble. Some were able to place bets, while others received marketing material promoting upcoming races or betting offers.

Self-Exclusion Rules Already In Force

BetStop was launched in 2023 as a national opt-in system allowing people to exclude themselves from all licensed online and phone betting providers at once. While legislation for the scheme was introduced years earlier, the rules have now been in force for more than two years.

The regulator noted that this timeframe meant the breaches could not be dismissed as early implementation issues. Wagering providers were expected to have robust systems in place to prevent self-excluded individuals from accessing their platforms.

ACMA said all of the breaches occurred during 2024 and warned that stronger action could follow if wagering providers fail to comply, including potential civil penalties through the Federal Court.

The cases reinforce why responsible gambling tools and self-exclusion systems only work when betting operators enforce them consistently.

Consumer advocates say the findings raise broader questions about how much trust players can place in harm-minimisation systems that depend entirely on operator compliance.

Enforcement Actions Vary By Operator

The regulator applied different enforcement measures depending on the severity and circumstances of each breach.

Tabcorp, the largest operator among those investigated, paid a financial penalty of $112,680 and entered into a court-enforceable undertaking. As part of that agreement, the company committed to an independent review of its customer verification processes and additional staff training around self-exclusion obligations.

The investigation into Tabcorp examined two separate complaints. In one case, the company had been notified multiple times that an individual was excluded, yet the person later opened a new account using updated personal details. The regulator concluded that Tabcorp’s internal safeguards failed to prevent this from happening.

Betfocus, LightningBet and TempleBet were issued remedial direction notices. These legally require the operators to commission independent audits of their systems and implement any recommendations that follow. Failure to comply with those directions could result in civil penalties.

BetChamps received a formal warning after it was found to have sent promotional material to a self-excluded individual. ACMA said enforcement action against Picklebet is still being finalised.

Broader Concerns About System Weaknesses

The cases have renewed attention on known limitations within self-exclusion systems. Shortly after BetStop launched, ACMA warned that individuals could sometimes circumvent exclusions by altering personal details such as email addresses or contact information.

Regulators and industry bodies have previously acknowledged that people experiencing gambling addiction may actively attempt to bypass exclusion systems, particularly when controls rely heavily on exact data matching.

As of late 2025, around 30,000 people had registered with BetStop. Consumer advocacy groups argue that the system’s effectiveness depends entirely on consistent enforcement by wagering providers, not just on the register itself.

Gambling Harm Remains A Major Issue

The findings also come against a backdrop of significant gambling losses in Australia. A recent report by economic consultancy Equity Economics estimated that Australians lose more than $31.5 billion each year across all forms of gambling.

Advocacy groups have long argued that self-exclusion is one of the few tools available to individuals trying to reduce or stop gambling, particularly in online environments where access is constant.

ACMA said all of the breaches it identified occurred during 2024 and warned that stronger regulatory action remains on the table. This could include Federal Court proceedings and additional civil penalties if operators fail to meet their obligations.

Regulator Signals Tougher Stance Ahead

While the regulator stopped short of announcing new rules, it made clear that self-exclusion compliance remains under close scrutiny. The message to wagering providers is that BetStop is not a symbolic safeguard but a system relied upon by people attempting to break harmful gambling patterns.

For consumers, the cases highlight an uncomfortable reality: self-exclusion only works when operators’ systems perform exactly as intended. When they do not, the consequences are felt most sharply by those the scheme was designed to protect.