Sportsbet Accused of Undue Influence Over Australian Regulator,ACMA
A new trove of documents reveals that gambling giant Sportsbet actively pressured the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) into “watering down” a public declaration regarding enforcement action against the company,raising serious questions about the independence of the regulator. The revelations come as the ACMA faces increasing scrutiny over its perceived closeness to the industries it oversees.
In 2022, the ACMA issued Sportsbet a then-record $2.5 million fine for sending marketing communications to over 37,000 individuals who had already unsubscribed from receiving them. The documents, obtained under freedom of details laws, show Sportsbet engaged in a detailed review of a draft media release announcing the penalty, and successfully lobbied for changes to language describing the potential harm caused by its actions.
independent MP Andrew Wilkie described the exchange as “shocking at every level,” asserting the exchange demonstrated a “very, very cosy relationship and a very unhealthy relationship” between the regulator and the gambling industry.
The core of the dispute centers on the language used to describe the potential harm caused by SportsbetS actions. In a draft of the media release,O’Loughlin stated,”It is highly likely that some of these people are vulnerable to gambling-related problems and were trying to address the issue by unsubscribing from Sportsbet’s promotions.” She further emphasized that Sportsbet’s failures had “the real potential to cause financial and emotional harm to these people and their families.”
Sportsbet responded swiftly, arguing the first quote should be “tempered/changed as the force, breadth or basis for the statement is questionable,” and offering similar objections to the second. The final, publicly released version softened the language, stating the ACMA had received complaints from individuals experiencing gambling-related problems and that the company’s actions had the “real potential to contribute to financial and emotional harm.”
Former Supreme Court judge Anthony Whealy, now chair of the Center for Public Integrity, criticized the ACMA for yielding to Sportsbet’s demands. “It’s got to stick to its guns and it’s not doing that,” he stated. whealy argued the company’s objections were motivated by a desire to minimize the perceived severity of their actions, and that the ACMA should only alter quotes for factual inaccuracies, which were not present in this case. “The reason Sportsbet didn’t want those sentences in there was as it magnified the harm of what they had done, but it magnified the harm correctly.”
These concerns are not isolated. Documents also reveal the ACMA made concessions to Optus, a telecommunications company, reducing potential financial penalties related to serious public safety breaches. Additionally, the release date of an enforcement announcement against the Commonwealth Bank was altered to avoid coinciding with the bank’s annual general meeting, preventing shareholders from questioning executives about the breach.
The ACMA defended its actions, maintaining the final media release was not “diminished in any way” and that sharing drafts with companies subject to enforcement action was standard practice to ensure “procedural fairness and accuracy.” Sportsbet similarly defended its request for changes, stating it only sought to “correct data and the factual accuracy of statements.”
However, gambling regulation expert Lauren Levin of the Gambling Policy Hub strongly disagreed. “Sportsbet is totally out of line,and I think that the regulator is also totally out of line,” she said. “It is quite unbelievable that a chair of a regulator allows her words to be changed.” Levin highlighted a separate case involving a man with a “severe gambling problem” who continued to receive promotional material – including a $500 bonus bet and invitations to sporting events – from Sportsbet after explicitly requesting to unsubscribe. She accused the company of exploiting a loophole and the ACMA of failing to intervene when the man received no compensation from the $1.2 million refund offered to affected customers. “They didn’t actually do anything with his complaint as far as I can see. He was on his own.”
Both Sportsbet and the ACMA declined to comment specifically on this individual case. Sportsbet stated it has since implemented “sweeping internal changes” to its consent and marketing frameworks.
The unfolding situation raises essential questions about the ACMA’s ability to effectively regulate a powerful and influential gambling industry, and whether the pursuit of “fairness and accuracy” has inadvertently created an surroundings where regulators are unduly influenced by those they are meant to oversee.
