Betting on the future: Gambling regulation in Australia in 2027 and beyond

More than 1,000 days after the release of the ‘You Win Some, You Lose More’ report, the Australian Government released its response and set the direction of travel for future gambling regulation in Australia. While the Government’s response addresses some of the key recommendations of the report, such as introducing further restrictions on gambling advertising and giving the regulator further powers to curb illegal gambling, many of the recommendations remain unaddressed. This has led to significant criticism from both sides of the gambling debate about the adequacy and purported effectiveness of the reforms. This article considers the Government’s response and assesses whether the measures will be effective at achieving its goals, or whether, in trying to satisfy both sides, the Government has failed to make any meaningful progress.

Introduction

The gambling industry in Australia has been in a state of turmoil over the past several years. Major casinos in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth have been subject to considerable scrutiny – and in some cases oversight – due to failures in their respective compliance regimes;[1] millions of dollars in fines have been issued by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) in respect of gambling operators’ breaches of their obligations;[2] and numerous measures have been taken to reduce the harm caused by gaming machines.[3]

One of the most important catalysts for the reforms in Australia was the 2023 ‘You Win Some, You Lose More’ report (the Murphy Report or Report). The Murphy Report is the final report of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs’ ‘Inquiry into Online Gambling and Its Impacts on Those Experiencing Gambling Harm’, chaired by the late Peta Murphy (Inquiry). The Murphy Report made 31 recommendations to reduce harm and drive government action in respect of gambling in Australia. Despite this aim, and despite the Murphy Report urging that swift action should be taken, the Australian Government did not announce its response until 12 May, 2026 – over 1,000 days after the report’s release. Shortly after announcing its response, the Government released an Exposure Draft of the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 (the Bill) on 29 May, 2026 with the final bill expected to be tabled in Parliament in July, 2026. Despite the time it took to formulate, however, the Government’s response has been criticised by parties on both sides of the debate.

This article critically analyses the Bill, and considers whether future gambling regulation in Australia will be effective at achieving its intended objectives. This article proceeds in three parts. Part II sets out some of the key recommendations from the Murphy Report. Part III details the key reforms set out in the Bill. Finally, Part IV comments on whether the Bill is likely to be effective at minimising gambling harm in Australia.

The Murphy Report

On its release in June, 2023, the Murphy Report was hailed as a landmark report on gambling reform in Australia. It highlighted the impact of online gambling on Australians, noting that ‘Australians outspend the citizens of every other country on online gambling’, losing AUS$25 billion every year.[4] The recommendations made in the Murphy Report apply a ‘public health lens to online gambling to reduce harm across the whole Australian population’.[5]

Some of the key recommendations are set out below.

A         National Gambling Regulator

Responsibility for gambling regulation in Australia is currently divided between the federal government and state/territory governments. Submissions to the Inquiry highlighted that the various regulators across Australia currently operate in silos.[6] Other submissions pointed out that, under the Australian Constitution, only the federal government has the ‘levers and authority to effectively introduce nationally consistent regulations in line with consumer expectations’.[7]

Despite this, other submissions emphasised that a national regulator would not have the same flexibility that state and territory regulators have by ‘being able to choose between a coordinated or unique approach’.[8]

In light of the consultation, the Murphy Report ultimately recommended that the Government establish a national regulator for online gambling with the sole purpose of reducing online gambling harm.[9] Similarly, it recommended that responsibility for online gambling harm reduction be held by a single Australian Government Minister, finding that the current regulatory framework is inadequate to reduce harm.[10]

B         Disrupting Illegal Online Gambling

The ACMA has been taking enforcement action against illegal offshore gambling services since 2017, and the Murphy Report notes that there has been a notable disruption in illegal gambling services during that period.[11]

While some operators argued that the introduction of further consumer protection measures would drive consumers to the illegal market,[12] most submissions to the Inquiry agreed that there was no evidence to support that claim and that effectively curbing the growth of the illegal market should be a priority.[13]

The main issues identified by the Murphy Report in connection with existing disruption measures (eg, website blocking) include the ability of illegal operators to circumvent the bans through the implementation of ‘mirror sites’, as well as the ease with which customers can still access illegal sites through the use of VPNs.[14]

In response, the Murphy Report recommended that the Government implement technological solutions to ‘quickly and more effectively block offshore gambling websites’ as well as develop a protocol to block transactions to illegal gambling sites in cooperation with banks.[15]

C         Ban on Gambling Advertisements

One of the main recommendations in the Murphy Report was a comprehensive ban on all forms of gambling advertising. The Murphy Report found that there was broad community support for ‘significant restrictions’ on gambling advertising, citing studies conducted by The Australia Institute which found that ‘seven in 10 Australians agree that gambling advertisements on television should be banned’.[16]

One of the concerns raised in relation to the saturation of gambling advertisements was the interrelation between gambling and sports and the ways in which gambling is marketed as a ‘normal, sociable and risk-free activity that is intrinsic to enjoying sport’.[17] Compounding this concern is the use of athletes and other celebrities to endorse or advertise gambling services, which, according to some of the submissions, may create the impression among consumers that gambling is less risky than it really is because it is being promoted by someone they trust.[18]

While there had been reforms in the years leading up to the Murphy Report – such as restrictions on gambling advertising in conjunction with the broadcast or streaming of live sporting events – in-venue advertising was not similarly restricted, which meant that consumers were still being exposed to gambling advertising, for example through advertisements on players’ jerseys.[19]

For these reasons, the Murphy Report recommended a comprehensive ban on gambling advertising, to be implemented in phases over three years.[20] Further, the Murphy Report recommended a prohibition on all online gambling inducements and inducement advertising, to be implemented ‘without delay’.[21]

Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reforms) Bill 2026

On 2 April, 2026, the Australian Government announced that it would be taking ‘strong action’ to protect Australians from the harms of gambling.[22] This action included further restrictions on gambling advertising to minimise children’s exposure to gambling harm as well as further reforms to ‘crackdown on dodgy operators’.[23] The Government announced that it would be developing legislation to support these reforms, which is expected to come into force from 1 January, 2027.

On 12 May, 2026, the Government released its official response to the Murphy Report (Response), with an Exposure Draft of the Bill being released on 29 May 2026. The key reforms proposed are set out below.

A         Restricting Wagering Advertising

One of the main reforms in the Bill is a crackdown on wagering advertising. The Response provides that these reforms are intended to address the saturation and targeting of wagering advertising, break the link between sports and online wagering, and protect children and vulnerable people from the harms of wagering advertising.[24]

In respect of sporting events, some of the specific reforms include banning all wagering advertising during live sporting events on broadcast channels between 6am and 8:30pm and banning all wagering advertising in sports venues and on players’ and officials’ uniforms.

While the permissibility of broadcasting gambling advertisements during sporting events largely does not change under the reforms, the prohibition on advertising in sporting venues and on uniforms is notable and has led to significant pushback from wagering operators and sporting teams alike.

For example, both the National Rugby League (NRL) and the Australian Football League have major partnerships with Sportsbet (the Australian subsidiary of Flutter Entertainment plc and Australia’s leading online wagering provider), estimated to have a value of AUS$15 million per year, and seven NRL teams currently have a wagering operator as their jersey sponsor.[25] As a result, the Australian Government announced on 15 April, 2026 that NRL teams will be allowed to retain their jersey sponsors until their sponsorship deals expire – in some cases, the deals will not expire until the end of the 2028 season.[26]

To address the concern relating to the saturation and targeting of wagering advertising, the Bill provides that, between 6am and 8:30pm, wagering advertising on broadcast television will be restricted to no more than three advertisements per hour per channel (unless it is during live sport, in which case they cannot be broadcast at all).

To protect children from wagering advertising, all wagering advertising on broadcast radio will be banned from 8–9am and 3–4pm, these being the times children are dropped off and picked up at school.

Moreover, it is an offence under the Bill for a licensed wagering service provider to make a contract or arrangement, or arrive at an understanding, with a ‘notable person’. ‘Notable persons’ are defined as including current or former athletes, current or former celebrities, current or former social media influencers and current or former prominent individuals; however, the Government has not provided any guidance as to the interpretation of these categories.

Finally, the Bill introduces a requirement for ‘Triple Lock’ functionality on all online platforms. This means that all wagering advertising on online platforms will be prohibited, except where users:

• are logged in;
• are 18 years or older; and
• have not opted out of such advertising.

The Triple Lock requirement applies to a wide range of platforms, including search engines, general websites and mobile game apps.[27] To date, there has been no guidance as to whether the ban will be applied uniformly across platforms – for instance, whether platforms featuring wagering advertising will be allowed to appear in search engine results – however, it is understood that platforms that wish to publish wagering advertising will be required to implement age verification measures to ensure that users are at least 18 years of age.

Age verification measures are not new to Australia. For example, as of 9 March, 2026, video game providers are required to implement similar age assurance measures to prevent children from accessing R18+ online video games.[28] Similarly, since 10 December, 2025, Australia has had in place a social media ban for persons under 16 years of age, requiring social media providers to verify the age of their users before they can access the platform.[29]

B         Boosting Enforcement against Illegal Operators

The Australian online gambling black market has seen significant growth in recent years, with the Government predicting that it will be valued at AUS$5 billion by 2029.[30] The ACMA is currently empowered to block illegal gambling sites and does so on a regular basis. However, the Response outlines that ‘the regulatory requirements are onerous and prohibit the ACMA from being able to investigate and respond rapidly’.[31]

To address this, the Bill implements measures to prevent illegal sites from operating in Australia. For example, it empowers banks to block financial transactions between Australian bank accounts and illegal gambling operators, as well as extending the ACMA’s powers to block illegal sites and expanding the scope of the ban on advertising illegal sites.

While these measures are said to ‘reduce the adverse effects of illegal online gambling on Australians’,[32] their effectiveness and the exact methods used to achieve these objectives is yet to be seen. With similar issues arising in other regulated gambling markets overseas, it will be interesting to see whether Australia’s approach will have a greater effect in limiting the availability of offshore gambling operators to Australian customers.

C         Strengthening the Operation of BetStop

As part of the National Consumer Protection Framework – where the federal government and all eight states and territories agreed to introduce into their legislative structure 10 mandatory consumer protection measures applicable to online wagering operators – the National Self-Exclusion Register, BetStop, was introduced on 21 August, 2023.[33]

BetStop allows Australian customers to self-exclude from Australian telephone and online wagering operators for a period anywhere between three months to permanently. The ACMA has been active in enforcing operators’ BetStop obligations – for example, Tabcorp Holdings recently paid a penalty of AUS$112,680 and agreed to enter into a court enforceable undertaking for failing to comply with its BetStop obligations.[34] Since its introduction, over 60,000 Australians have registered to self-exclude.[35]

In February, 2026, the Government published the Report of the Statutory Review of BetStop (BetStop Report), finding that it is delivering well on its objectives; however, it identified several areas which could be improved. These areas include: greater promotion to increase awareness of BetStop, ongoing data matching to reduce opportunities for users to circumvent BetStop, and expanding BetStop’s scope to cover online keno and similar products.[36]

The Bill introduces measures to strengthen BetStop in line with the recommendations and findings from the BetStop Report.

D         Addressing Harmful and Emerging Online Lottery Products

The Government notes the emergence of new products which are ‘contrary to the intent and spirit of the IGA [Interactive Gambling Act]’ and which, the Government argues, do not have appropriate consumer protection mechanisms in place. We address these products below.

1          Online Keno

Contrary to traditional keno, online keno products are now offered as, some stakeholders claim, a ‘highly repetitive, rapid play gambling product, with high spend limits and high frequency “draws”, with some offerings allowing customers to spend up to AUS$1,000 every 3 minutes’.[37]

As detailed above, BetStop currently does not cover online keno, meaning that consumers cannot self-exclude from online keno services at a national level. The Government notes that online keno is also exempt from gambling advertising rules.

Against that background, the Bill provides that all online keno will be banned, including for current operators. This measure was surprising given that online keno was not the subject of any concern in the Murphy Report. It is unclear at this stage what research or statistics the Government is relying on to underpin this measure.

2          Foreign-Matched Lotteries

Foreign-matched lotteries effectively allow customers to participate in international lottery draws. Foreign-matched lotteries are currently classified as an ‘excluded lottery service’ in the Interactive Gambling Act (IGA) and are therefore not required to provide the consumer protection mechanisms set out therein.

The Bill amends the definition of ‘excluded lottery service’ to exclude foreign matched lotteries. The effect of this exclusion is that foreign matched lotteries will no longer be permitted to operate in Australia.

3          Trade Promotion Lotteries

Trade promotion lotteries are a form of lottery which allows businesses to conduct draws and giveaway prizes to promote the sale of goods and services. While trade promotions are not regulated at the federal level (note that trade promotions are currently carved out of the definition of a ‘gambling service’ in the IGA), state and territory legislation contain provisions for the conduct of trade promotions, including, in some cases, the requirement to obtain a permit.[38]

The popularity of trade promotions in Australia has arguably been led by the activities of Xclusive Tech Pty Ltd, which operates the platform LMCT+. LMCT+ provides a subscription service whereby subscribers are provided exclusive discounts with various retailers as well as entries into LMCT+’s extravagant giveaways. Giveaway prizes have previously included AUS$1 million cash, luxury vehicles and luxury houses.

Over the past several years, there has been a considerable number of market entrants which adopt a similar structure to LMCT+, which the Response identifies as a concern. Consequently, the Bill narrows the definition of ‘trade promotion gambling service’ to exclude these types of subscription-style services. As a result, stricter criteria apply for a service to be considered a ‘trade promotion lottery’ which will effectively limit the number of subscription-style services which can be offered in Australia.

Commentary

The Response was met with significant backlash, mainly due to the timing of its release. It was released just hours before the 2026 Federal Budget, leading some critics to accuse the Government of trying to ‘bury’ it and leading Independent Senator, David Pocock, to call it ‘cowardly’ and ‘disrespectful’.[39]

The Bill has similarly done little to quell criticism of the Government’s response – Western Australian MP Kate Chaney stated that it is ‘full of loopholes’ and David Pocock said that it was ‘smoke and mirrors when it comes to sport’.[40]

More to the point, however, the Bill has frustrated both sides of the debate. Gambling reform advocates have called the Response ‘timid’, while the betting industry has criticised the Government for failing to consult with industry stakeholders, arguing that an overregulated gambling market will simply drive consumers to the illegal market.[41]

Perhaps the most notable element of the Bill is its failure to engage with the majority of the Murphy Report recommendations. The Murphy Report set out 31 recommendations to reduce gambling harm; however, the Bill addresses only a handful of these. For example, while the Murphy Report recommended a comprehensive ban on gambling advertising, the Bill stops far short of that recommendation, introducing only a suite of further restrictions on advertising. This was justified by Prime Minister Albanese on the basis that it seeks to balance protecting children from advertising with adults’ freedom to bet.[42]

Despite these measures being designed to curb advertising, there remain questions as to whether they will be effective in practice. For instance, as discussed above, the Government has already limited some of the reforms by allowing NRL teams to retain jersey sponsorship until the end of their deals, which means Australian customers will continue to view gambling advertising on uniforms until at least 2028. Similarly, the measures contained in the Bill prohibiting gambling advertisements during live sport are only marginally more restrictive than the regulations already in place.

While the Triple Lock restrictions may be more effective at reducing the visibility of advertising for children, it is unclear whether they will be effective for other vulnerable individuals (eg, problem gamblers) in circumstances where the restrictions will rely on the user opting out of advertising. By the same token, the steps required by the Triple Lock restrictions will mean that many consumers who are logged in and who are over 18 years of age will not see a notable difference in the number of gambling advertisements, unless they proactively opt out.

On the other side of the debate, the Government has failed to consider the effect that further restrictions will have on television and radio broadcasters as well as sporting codes which rely on the revenue obtained through gambling advertising. This point was considered in detail in the Murphy Report, which acknowledged that television broadcasters were ‘concerned that any loss of advertising revenue would affect their ability to make and provide content’.[43] Similarly, the Murphy Report referred to submissions from sporting bodies which outlined that ‘revenue from sports betting, media rights deals and gambling sponsorship funds sport in Australia, both at elite and grassroots level’.[44]

At the professional level, it may be that the crackdown on gambling advertisements will affect the NRL’s next broadcasting deal, which is anticipated to be completed before July, 2026, as the decrease in gambling advertising revenue could result in the broadcasting deal being less valuable and therefore less appealing to prospective broadcasters.[45]

The Bill also fails to introduce a federal gambling regulator, as was recommended in the Murphy Report, meaning that regulation will continue to be split between the federal and state/territory governments. Accordingly, the effectiveness of the current reforms (as well as any future reforms) will depend largely on cooperation between the federal government and the state/territory governments. For example, trade promotions are not currently regulated at the federal level, meaning that any new regulations which apply to trade promotions will need to be agreed between the states/territories who may have different regulatory preferences and may be less willing to adjust the existing regulations in respect of trade promotions.

By the same token, the Northern Territory (NT) regulator’s status as the country’s ‘de facto gambling regulator’ means that it will be more affected by the reforms than other states/territories. For instance, to the extent that the reforms will drive wagering operators out of Australia, the NT will be affected more than other states as it will no longer be able to rely on the revenue derived from licensing and other fees paid by the operators.

The same is true for the prohibition of online keno providers.[46] The outright prohibition of online keno means that the revenue that state regulators derive from these operators will disappear. This is not to mention the fact that online keno providers will no longer be able to rely on their Australian revenue which could seriously compromise their continuing profitability.

Finally, there will likely be significant privacy concerns associated with the ACMA’s new ability to partner with banks to block transactions to illegal operators, which the Bill fails to consider. It is possible that these matters will be addressed before the legislation comes into force in January 2027; however, no clarity has been given at the time of writing as to how these laws will balance between the ACMA’s powers and the privacy of individuals.

Conclusions

The above analysis demonstrates that, in trying to balance the interests of all industry stakeholders, the Government has failed to adequately address stakeholders’ interests and has left both sides of the debate unsatisfied. Further clarity will undoubtedly be provided as the Bill progresses through Parliament; however, until then, stakeholders will be left to quarrel about the future of gambling regulation in Australia.

[1]        ‘The Star’s Manager’s Term Extended for Further Six Months’, NSW Independent Casino Commission (Media Release, 1 April, 2026) <https://www.nicc.nsw.gov.au/news-and-media-releases/star-manager%E2%80%99s-term-extended-for-further-six-months>; The Star Entertainment Group, ‘Disciplinary Action and Appointment of Special Manager in Queensland’ (ASX Announcement, 9 December 2022); ‘About the Special Manager: An Overview of the Office of the Special Manager’, Vic.gov.au (Web Page, 28 June,2024) <https://www.vic.gov.au/about-special-manager-melbourne-casino-operator>; Paul Papalia, ‘Casino Licensee Found Suitable by Racing and Gaming Minister’ (Media Release, 8 July, 2025) <https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/Cook%20Labor%20Government/Casino-licensee-found-suitable-by-Racing-and-Gaming-Minister-20250708>.

[2]        See, eg, ‘Unibet Penalised $1 Million for Gambling Self-Exclusion Breaches’, ACMA (Media Release, 21 May 2025); ‘TAB Penalised $4 Million for Spamming VIP Customers’, ACMA (Media Release, 17 June 2025) <https://www.acma.gov.au/articles/2025-06/tab-penalised-4-million-spamming-vip-customers>.

[3]        See, eg, Gaming Machines Act 2001 (NSW) pt 4.

[4]        You Win Some, You Lose More: Online Gambling and Its Impacts on Those Experiencing Gambling Harm (Report, Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, June 2023) iii, 1 (Murphy Report).

[5]        Ibid iv.

[6]        Ibid 17–18 [2.9].

[7]        Ibid 18 [2.11].

[8]        Ibid 18 [2.14].

[9]        Ibid 41 [2.131].

[10]       Ibid 41 [2.132], 63 [4.3].

[11]       Ibid 36 [2.106].

[12]       See, eg, ibid 37 [2.109].

[13]       Ibid 36–8 [2.108], [2.110]–[2.114].

[14]       Ibid 38–9 [2.116]–[2.117].

[15]       Ibid 45 [2.152].

[16]       Ibid 97–8 [5.2]–[5.4].

[17]       Ibid 99 [5.10].

[18]       Ibid 99 [5.14].

[19]       Ibid 110 [5.64].

[20]       Ibid 127 [5.148].

[21]       Ibid 92 [4.142].

[22]       Anthony Albanese, Tanya Plibersek and Anika Wells, ‘Strong Action to Tackle Gambling Harms’ (Media Release, 2 April 2026) <https://www.pm.gov.au/media/strong-action-tackle-gambling-harms>.

[23]       Ibid.

[24]       Australian Government, ‘Australian Government Response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs Inquiry Report: You Win Some, You Lose More’ (May 2026) 4 (Government Response).

[25]       Chris Barrett, Dan Walsh and Danny Russell, ‘NRL, AFL Brace for Impact of Gambling Advertising Reforms’, The Age (online, 2 April, 2026) <https://www.theage.com.au/sport/nrl-afl-brace-for-impact-of-gambling-advertising-reforms-20260402-p5zkyk.html>.

[26]       Chris Barrett, ‘NRL Clubs Handed Betting Sponsorship Lifeline in Face of Looming Ban’, The Sydney Morning Herald (online, 15 April, 2026) <https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-clubs-handed-betting-sponsorship-lifeline-in-face-of-looming-ban-20260415-p5zo0y.html>.

[27]       Ibid 5.

[28]       Emily Kowal, ‘Adults Required to Prove Age to Watch Porn, Video Games in Major Crackdown’, The Sydney Morning Herald (online, 6 March, 2026) <https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/adults-required-to-prove-age-to-watch-porn-video-games-in-major-crackdown-20260305-p5o7rs.html>.

[29]       Justine Munsie et al, ‘Australia’s Under-16 Social Media Ban Begins’, Addisons (online, 9 December, 2025) <https://addisons.com/article/australias-under-16-social-media-ban-begins>.

[30]       Government Response (n 24) 5.

[31]       Ibid.

[32]       Ibid 6.

[33]       Jamie Nettleton, Brodie Campbell and Jak Yasuda, ‘Gaming: Australia’, Lexology: Panoramic (30 April, 2026).

[34]       ‘Six Wagering Providers Breach Gambling Self-Exclusion Rules’, ACMA (Media Release, 29 January 2026) <https://www.acma.gov.au/articles/2026-01/six-wagering-providers-breach-gambling-self-exclusion-rules>.

[35]       Government Response (n 24) 6.

[36]       Richard Eccles, Report of the Statutory Review of BetStop – the National Self-Exclusion Register (Report, December, 2025) 7–8.

[37]       Government Response (n 24) 6.

[38]       See, eg, Community Gaming Regulation 2020 (NSW) s 14; Gambling Regulations 2015 (Vic) pt 5.

[39]       Nicole Asher, ‘Government Accused of “Burying” Response to Landmark Gambling Report with Budget Day Release’, ABC News (online, 12, May 2026) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-12/government-accused-burying-response-peta-murphy-gambling-report/106639176>; Sam Buckingham-Jones, ‘“Cowardly”: Albanese Blasted for Burying Gambling Reform on Budget Day’, Australian Financial Review (online, 12 May 2026) <https://www.afr.com/companies/games-and-wagering/cowardly-albanese-blasted-for-burying-gambling-reform-on-budget-day-20260512-p5zw0e>.

[40]       Tom Rabe, ‘“Loopholes and Deflections”: Opponents Slam Labor’s Gambling Reform’, Australian Financial Review (online, 31 May 2026) <https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/loopholes-and-deflections-opponents-slam-labor-s-gambling-reform-20260531-p602ew>.

[41]       Rob Harris, ‘1,000 Days Later: Albanese Government Unveils “Scaled-Back” Gambling Reforms’, The Sydney Morning Herald (online, 12 May, 2026) <https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/1000-days-later-albanese-government-unveils-scaled-back-gambling-reforms-20260512-p5zw1i.html>.

[42]       Ibid.

[43]       Murphy Report (n 4) 118 [5.101].

[44]       Ibid 121 [5.110].

[45]       James Madden, ‘NRL’s Record TV Rights Deal Ambitions Threatened by Government Gambling Ad Ban’, The Australian (online, 5 April, 2026) <https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/nrls-record-tv-rights-deal-ambitions-threatened-by-government-gambling-ad-ban/news-story/a8f71e5f77c6ae0688e1bb47ff5d31b9>.

[46]       Australian Government, ‘Review into the Regulation of Online Keno and Foreign-Matched Lotteries’ (January, 2026) 6.

Jamie Nettleton, Brodie Campbell and Jak Yasuda are members of the gaming and gambling team ad Addisons, Australia.

Read more IMGL articles on Crown Casinohttps://www.imgl.org/publications/imgl-magazine-volume-3-no-1/state-of-flux-changing-regulation-of-the-australian-casino-sector/https://www.imgl.org/publications/imgl-magazine-volume-3-no-1/state-of-flux-changing-regulation-of-the-australian-casino-sector/

How a ‘disgraceful’ casino was rebuilt

State of flux: changing regulation of the Australian casino sector