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

  • Abhorrent violent content prohibited

    Abhorrent violent content prohibited

    Organizations hosting abhorrent violent material, such as terrorism, murder, torture, rape and kidnapping, now face hefty fines under the Criminal Code Amendment Act 2019 (Cth), up to 50,000 penalty units or 10% of annual turnover.

    Read more …

  • De-encryption Bill currently before Joint Committee

    De-encryption Bill currently before Joint Committee

    The much awaited Telecommunications and other Legislation Amendment (Assistance And Access) De-encryption Bill 2018 (De-encryption Bill) has been referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (Joint Committee).  The Joint Committee has allowed three (3) weeks for submissions.  It is a very short time-frame for submissions considering the controversial nature of the Bill.…

    Read more …

  • Making financial forecasts – legal pitfalls for business

    Making financial forecasts – legal pitfalls for business

    Organisations must be aware of the legal risks associated with social media use, such as wrongful dismissal, trade mark infringement, and defamation. This article outlines these risks and provides steps to protect against them.

    Read more …

  • De-encryption laws: compelling tech giants to cooperate with law enforcement

    De-encryption laws: compelling tech giants to cooperate with law enforcement

    The Australian Government is introducing encryption-related legislation that could have significant implications. Get the full scoop on what this Bill could mean for companies and citizens before it is officially announced.

    Read more …

  • Domain name disputes – the case of eazyjet.com

    Domain name disputes – the case of eazyjet.com

    Learn more about domain name disputes and the evidence required to establish confusion, rights, and bad faith. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) provide legal elements and remedies, and the implications of failing to respond to a complaint.

    Read more …

  • EU General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) – How to comply

    EU General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) – How to comply

    The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) applies to Australian entities processing personal data of European Union (EU) citizens/residents. It outlines principles, notification obligations, penalties for non-compliance, and requirements for cross-border data transfers.

    Read more …

  • Artificial intelligence – introductory thoughts on the legal issues

    Artificial intelligence – introductory thoughts on the legal issues

    Technology lawyers are grappling with the complex legal issues associated with Artificial Intelligence (AI), such as liability, competition, consumer issues, intellectual property, data ownership, security, and privacy. This article explores these topics and examines the approach taken in the European Union.

    Read more …

  • Comparing software developers by methodology

    Comparing software developers by methodology

    Software development requires careful consideration: choice of onshore/offshore devs, methodology (Agile/Waterfall), type of requirement document, and the cost. Learn the differences to make an informed decision before committing to a development for your project.

    Read more …

  • Is using a trade mark in AdWords considered infringement?

    Is using a trade mark in AdWords considered infringement?

    A Court concluded that a company had infringed a trade mark using Google AdWords in Veda Advantage Limited v Malouf Group Enterprises Pty Limited [2016] FCA 255. Click through to learn more about the dispute, and the learning points and takeaways.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend