New Study Shows Credit-Card Betting Ban Had Only Modest Impact

Australia’s ban on using credit cards for online wagering has delivered a measurable drop in online sports-betting and casino activity. Still, new research shows the change had less to do with curbing access to borrowed money and more to do with the simple hassle of switching payment methods.

The analysis, released by the e61 Institute, examined anonymised transaction data before and after the federal government’s June 2024 ban. The ban prevented the use of credit cards for online wagering but left lotteries untouched. 

While the government positioned the reform as a way to prevent people gambling with money they didn’t have, the data tells a more practical story: most gamblers were already betting with their own funds, and credit-card use represented only a small slice of the market.

A Noticeable Drop:  But Not for the Reasons Expected

The study found that average online sports-betting expenditure among affected gamblers fell by about A$50 per fortnight in the six weeks after the ban took effect. Around one-third of users who previously bet with credit stopped all recorded gambling during the study window. At face value, these results look like the ban meaningfully shifted behaviour.

But when the researchers dug deeper, it became clear the drop reflected inconvenience rather than a clampdown on credit. Bettors had to register new debit payment methods, update their accounts, or complete additional verification steps. 

For casual punters,  especially those placing small, infrequent bets,  these minor frictions were enough to stop them wagering altogether. The study showed a 15 per cent decline in the probability of gambling per fortnight, mainly driven by those low-stakes customers.

For heavier or more committed gamblers, the impact was far less significant. This group adapted quickly, switched to transaction accounts, and continued betting without significant changes to frequency or spend.

Credit-Card Betting Was Already Fading Away

One of the strongest findings in the report is just how small credit-card wagering had become by early 2024. Only about two per cent of credit-card accounts were used for gambling, and that number had been shrinking over time. The reason was straightforward: gambling transactions on credit cards were treated as cash advances, attracting high fees and immediate interest charges.

This meant that gamblers rarely used credit cards unless they were willing to swallow the extra costs. Most instead relied on debit cards, bank transfers and digital wallets long before the government intervened.

Interestingly, the study also found that people who gambled with credit tended to have higher incomes and more liquid savings than the average bettor. They weren’t a group in noticeable financial distress, nor were they reliant on credit because they lacked alternative funds.

No Major Signs of Financial Improvement

The ban was pitched as a consumer-protection measure aimed at reducing harm. But the researchers found little evidence of improved financial outcomes among affected users in the weeks following implementation.

There were no meaningful increases in savings, reductions in debt, or improved day-to-day financial health. The ban prevented people from gambling on credit, but it didn’t change the amount of money they had available, and most simply shifted their spending to debit cards.

The study also pointed out that gamblers who wanted to continue using credit still had indirect avenues available. They could move money from a credit card into a bank account, top up digital wallets funded by credit, or access personal loans. Most didn’t bother, mainly because they already had adequate funds and because credit-card gambling had never been a dominant payment method.

A Ban That Changed Convenience, Not Capability

The results highlight a core issue in regulating gambling: behavioural change often hinges more on small obstacles than strict prohibitions. By forcing punters to set up new payment methods, the government unintentionally discouraged those who weren’t strongly attached to betting.

This unintended behavioural nudge may explain why the ban reduced participation among occasional gamblers but had a limited effect on heavier punters. The study suggests that these kinds of policy “frictions” can influence gambling patterns, but their impact is modest unless they target areas where harm is more concentrated.

Pressure Mounts for Broader Gambling Reforms

The findings land at a time when Canberra faces intensifying demands to tighten gambling regulation. Australia’s gambling losses remain the highest per capita in the world, and several recent inquiries have pointed to widespread harm linked to online betting, pokies, and advertising saturation.

Poker machines continue to account for the bulk of gambling-related harm, yet the credit-card ban did nothing to restrict indirect credit use at pubs, clubs, or playing pokies at online casinos. The researchers argue that far greater reductions in harm would come from targeting pokies, where risk levels are far higher and losses can rapidly escalate.

Meanwhile, other reforms, such as the BetStop national self-exclusion system, have achieved limited uptake compared with the estimated number of high-risk gamblers nationwide. Some operators have also been penalised for failing to comply with consumer-protection obligations, including activity-statement requirements.

A Useful Step, But Not a Transformative One

Taken together, the study paints the credit-card ban as a reform that changed behaviour around the edges but didn’t reshape Australia’s gambling landscape. It nudged casual punters out of the market by making betting less convenient, but it didn’t significantly disrupt those most at risk.

As governments continue to weigh advertising restrictions, online wagering rules and broader harm-reduction measures, the e61 findings suggest that targeting the areas where harm is highest,  particularly poker machines,  may deliver far more meaningful results.