Australia Plans Longer Deadline for ACMA to Pursue Gambling Breaches

Australia’s gambling regulator could be given more time to pursue compliance breaches under a proposed reform aimed at strengthening oversight of the legal wagering market.

The change would extend the period in which the Australian Communications and Media Authority can issue infringement notices for gambling-related breaches from 12 months to 24 months. The proposal follows renewed scrutiny of ACMA’s enforcement powers after its recent case involving Entain Group, the parent company of Ladbrokes AU and Neds AU.

ACMA said in May that Entain had entered into a court-enforceable undertaking after the regulator found more than 500 breaches linked to BetStop, Australia’s national self-exclusion register. The case focused on whether self-excluded customers were properly prevented from opening or using betting accounts.

The matter did not involve an illegal gambling operator. Ladbrokes and Neds are recognised wagering brands in Australia, which makes the case more about legal compliance than market access. The central question is whether licensed operators are meeting their obligations under consumer protection rules.

That distinction is important as Australia continues to tighten its gambling framework. Much of the public debate has focused on advertising, especially around sport, but enforcement timelines are becoming just as important. If investigations take longer than expected, regulators may have limited options once the current deadline has passed.

Supporters of a longer deadline argue that gambling compliance cases can be complex. Investigations may involve customer records, account-matching systems, complaint timelines, marketing activity and internal operator processes. Giving ACMA 24 months could allow the regulator to complete more detailed investigations before deciding whether financial penalties are appropriate.

For operators, the reform may create a longer period of regulatory exposure. Licensed wagering companies would likely need to place even greater focus on record-keeping, self-exclusion checks and internal compliance systems.

For consumers, the proposed change would not alter how betting accounts work day to day. However, it could strengthen accountability behind the scenes, particularly where responsible gambling tools are involved.

The debate also comes at a time when Australian gambling consumers are comparing a wider range of betting and casino sites, making clear rules and consistent enforcement more important for trust across the sector.

BetStop remains central to the issue. Once someone self-excludes, wagering providers are expected to prevent that person from opening accounts, placing bets or receiving direct marketing during the exclusion period. The Entain case showed how closely regulators are now watching whether those protections work in practice.

The proposed extension still needs to move through the legislative process, but it signals a broader shift in Australian gambling regulation. The focus is no longer only on what operators can advertise or offer. It is also on whether licensed companies can be held accountable when compliance systems fail.