technology lawyer

Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth) overview

HomePrivate: BlogTechnology lawInternet lawInteractive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth) overview

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

In Australia the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) sets the rules for companies that offer or advertise gambling services.  It applies to all online gambling, whether through a website, app or social media platform.  Under the Act, the provision of internet gambling services in Australia is generally prohibited, subject to some exceptions.  The Act empowers the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to investigate complaints, write investigation reports and undertake enforcement and compliance monitoring activities.

What is a prohibited interactive gambling service?

Section 5 of the Act defines a gambling service as a gambling service where:

(a)  the service is provided in the course of carrying on a business; and

 (b)  the service is provided to customers using any of the following:

(i) an internet carriage service;

(ii) any other listed carriage service;

(iii) a broadcasting service;

(iv) any other content service;

(v) a datacasting service.

Section 5 also provides a list of exceptions to this including:

  • a telephone betting service;
  • an excluded wagering service; and
  • an excluded gaming service.

Section 15 of the Act provides that prohibited interactive gambling services must not be provided to customers in Australia.  This provision states:

(1)  A person commits an offence if:

                     (a)  the person intentionally provides a prohibited interactive gambling service; and

                     (b)  the service has an Australian‑customer link (see section 8).

Requirement to be licensed

The Act was amended in 2017 pursuant to the passing of the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016 (Bill).  The Bill was implemented in response to the Australian Government’s 2015 Review of the impact of illegal offshore wagering.

The Act now defines two (2) categories of services, namely ‘regulated interactive gambling services’ and ‘prohibited interactive gambling services’.  The principal distinction is that regulated interactive gambling services are allowed to be provided by operators who are licensed in Australia and authorised to provide the relevant services under the terms of their license.

Therefore, operators who were previously exempt from the definition of a ‘prohibited interactive gambling service’ and were not prohibited by the Act (such as excluded wagering and lottery services) are now required to be licensed.  The Bill imposes both criminal and civil penalties to operators who provide a prohibited interactive gambling service to customers in Australia.

ACMA’s enforcement powers

The Bill granted ACMA greater powers to enforce the provisions of the Act, including the creation of a complaints process for the supply and promotion of any unlicensed or prohibited interactive gambling services, and a procedure enabling the ACMA to conduct investigations in relation to these complaints.  Under the Bill, the ACMA must set up a register of legitimate interactive gambling services which can be accessed by the public on the ACMA website.

The Bill also amends the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005 (Cth) to enable the ACMA to disclose information relating to gambling services to:

  • the Department of Immigration and Border Protection who may place the names of executive officers of organisations who contravene the Act on a “Movement Alert List” with the aim of restricting their travel to, or from, Australia; and
  • international regulators of operators licensed by that regulator who may be in breach of the Act through supplying interactive gambling services to persons present in Australia.

The immediate impact of these amendments was to clarify to offshore gambling operators that the supply of online gaming services (including online casino games and online poker services) to Australians without a licence is prohibited by Australian law.

The case of Lottoland v ACMA

In the case of Lottoland Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Communications and Media Authority [2019] NSWSC 1041 (Lottoland v ACMA), the Court provided guidance on how the Act should be understood and applied.  Importantly, the Court explored the line between a game of chance and a wager, and clarified the boundary between prohibited gaming services and lawful wagering.

Lottoland Australia Pty Ltd ACN 602 590 429 (Lottoland) holds a sports bookmaker licence issued by the Northern Territory, allowing it to provide betting services relating to ‘bets on approved sporting events’.  In response to a ban on lottery betting services, Lottoland launched a range of new betting products approved by the Northern Territory Government.

ACMA commenced an investigation into five (5) of Lottoland’s gambling products on the basis that they breached section 15 of the Act.  This finding was on the basis that ‘several Lottoland online jackpot betting services were games of chance which are prohibited under the Act’.  Lottoland argued that the products fell under the ‘excluded wagering services’ exemption in section 5 of the Act, as they relate to betting on ‘an event, series of events or contingency’.

The Court upheld Lottoland’s argument.  Justice Sackar noted at [87] that there was no detailed or technical definition in the Act and that it was therefore appropriate to read the words in their natural and ordinary meaning within the context of the Act.  His Honour noted that there was no skill, opinion or belief involved in the gambling products.  Further, there was no evidence or rational methodology of predicting the numbers at all, and in this context there were no traditional elements of a ‘game’ present in the products.  Accordingly, Lottoland’s gambling products were held to be excluded wagering services and therefore were not in breach of the prohibition against interactive gambling in section 15.

For more information on the Court’s consideration of the meanings of ‘bet’ and ‘game’, see our earlier article here.

Takeaways

Australian online gambling legislation is complex.  Online interactive gambling is generally prohibited in Australia, however there are some exceptions such as exempt online wagering and lotto services.  Even those exempt operators are still required to obtain a license before they will be authorised to provide online gaming services.  If an operator provides prohibited gaming services, they may be subject to investigation by the ACMA, which could result in civil and criminal penalties.

Links and further references

Legislation

Australian Communications and Media Authority Act 2005 (Cth)

Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth)

Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016

Cases

Betfair Pty Limited v Western Australia [2008] HCA 11

Lottoland Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Communications and Media Authority [2019] NSWSC 1041

Further information about gambling compliance

If you need assistance with compliance for an online wagering business, please telephone me for an obligation free and confidential discussion.


Related insights about gambling compliance

  • Adaptations and computer code – copyright issues

    Adaptations and computer code – copyright issues

    An adaption in copyright is the exclusive right of the owner of the work in question.  Section 10 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Act) defines adaption as it relates to literary works in dramatic and non-dramatic forms, in a computer program and in relation to a musical work.   The rights that apply to adaptions…

    Read more …

  • Australian court orders Google to unmask reviewer

    Australian court orders Google to unmask reviewer

    The case of Kabbabe v Google LLC [2020] FCA 126 has major implications for businesses and online reviewers alike. Learn more about the Court’s decision and what it means for anonymous online reviews by reading the full article.

    Read more …

  • Computer code libraries and copyright ownership

    Computer code libraries and copyright ownership

    The Australian case of Redrock Holdings Pty Ltd and Hotline Communications Ltd v Hinkley [2001] VSC 91 has shed light on how the ownership of copyright in code libraries is determined. Learn more about the dispute and its implications for copyright ownership in this blog post.

    Read more …

  • e-Signatures – legally binding on companies?

    e-Signatures – legally binding on companies?

    E-signatures are becoming increasingly popular, but are they legally binding? Find out in this article, which examines the Adelaide Bank case and reveals the limitations of e-signatures when it comes to executing a deed. Click through to learn more.

    Read more …

  • New safety standards proposed for online platforms

    New safety standards proposed for online platforms

    The Australian Government has proposed an Online Safety Act that could significantly change the way businesses manage user-generated content online. Find out how this proposed Act could affect your business and how you can prepare for it.

    Read more …

  • Has my software been copied? – legal test explained

    Has my software been copied? – legal test explained

    This article examines the legal test for a “substantial reproduction” of computer code, as established by the High Court in Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 49 and further discussed in subsequent cases. The Court will consider the essential features of the work to determine if there has been a substantial…

    Read more …

  • A bet or a game? The Lottoland decision

    A bet or a game? The Lottoland decision

    The Supreme Court of New South Wales has ruled in favour of Lottoland Australia Pty Ltd, affirming that its disputed products fall under the exception of an Excluded Wagering Service as defined by the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth), clarifying the distinction between ‘bets’ and ‘games’.

    Read more …

  • Technology startups – top 5 legal considerations

    Technology startups – top 5 legal considerations

    Start your tech startup on the right footing by considering the top five (5) legal considerations: entity structure and asset protection, intellectual property (IP), confidentiality, contracts, privacy and compliance.

    Read more …

  • Legal concerns in software support agreements

    Legal concerns in software support agreements

    Software developers must consider tech and product support services when taking software to market, such as differences between technical and product support, supported and non-supported items, and differences between installed and hosted software support agreements.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend