technology lawyer

Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth) overview

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

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

4–7 minutes

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

  • Legal challenges arising from data loss

    Legal challenges arising from data loss

    Organisations must protect confidential data from external and internal threats. Learn steps to secure data, potential data breach implications, and how a data breach notification bill may require affected entities to notify consumers.

    Read more …

  • Data Breach Bill 2016 – key data security considerations

    Data Breach Bill 2016 – key data security considerations

    The Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Bill 2016 has been passed, making notification of data breaches mandatory from 23 February 2018. Find out how this could affect you and what measures you can take to protect your data.

    Read more …

  • What are Software Development Agreements?

    What are Software Development Agreements?

    Having a Software Development Agreement (SDA) is essential for any successful software development project. Learn more about the key clauses involved and how to avoid potential issues.

    Read more …

  • Legal risks in the in-app purchase model

    Legal risks in the in-app purchase model

    Software developers and publishers are offering users the chance to make In-App Purchases within their software, but there are legal risks involved. Learn how to protect yourself and your business by understanding the requirements of distribution platforms and Australian consumer law.

    Read more …

  • Letting go of employees threatening to go to the media

    Letting go of employees threatening to go to the media

    When employees leak confidential information or threaten to go to the media, employers can face serious consequences. Find out what the Fair Work Commission says about this issue and what options employers have to protect themselves.

    Read more …

  • App developers – take care with Apple Developer License

    App developers – take care with Apple Developer License

    Creating apps for Apple devices requires adherence to Apple’s Developer Agreement, Program Licence Agreement, and App Store Review Guidelines. Learn about your rights and obligations when it comes to agreeing to Apple’s terms and conditions, and the consequences of ignoring them.

    Read more …

  • Data security – the increasing burden

    Data security – the increasing burden

    The consequences for an Australian business victim for a breach of cyber security are forecast to exponentially increase. In February 2015 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (Committee) recommended the introduction of mandatory data breach notification scheme (Scheme) by the end of 2015.[1] Whilst the details of the incoming Scheme are currently scant,…

    Read more …

  • What exactly is an advertising sign-off?

    What exactly is an advertising sign-off?

    Injunctions are Court orders that can restrain almost any conduct. Prohibitory, Mandatory, and Ex Parte injunctions can be sought if serious question to be tried, urgency, damages would not suffice, and the balance of convenience favours the applicant.

    Read more …

  • Facebook comments ruled as workplace bullying

    Facebook comments ruled as workplace bullying

    A ruling by the Fair Work Commission has broadened the concept of ‘being at work’ to include activities authorized or permitted by the employer. Learn more about how this could affect your workplace and why it’s important to have a strong social media policy in place.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend