VCAT upholds fine against OkeBet for unlawful gambling marketing

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has confirmed that the Australian online bookmaker partnership OkeBet breached the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 in the state of Victoria. The Tribunal’s ruling upholds the disciplinary action originally taken by the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC) and affirms a penalty of AU$100,000 alongside a formal censure for unlawful conduct involving marketing practices that targeted self-excluded individuals and community sporting clubs.

This decision marks an important moment in the enforcement of responsible gambling laws in Australia and reinforces the responsibilities that wagering operators must meet under Victorian legislation. It underscores the legal obligations of gambling providers to avoid exposing vulnerable people to promotional material and to refrain from offering inducements that are prohibited by statute.

Commission findings and basis for fine

The VGCCC initiated disciplinary action against OkeBet in September 2024 after concluding that the operator engaged in conduct that contravened key protections in the Gambling Regulation Act 2003 (Vic). At issue were two main areas of noncompliance:

Marketing promotional material to individuals who had registered on self-exclusion lists and clearly indicated they did not wish to receive gambling offers.

Providing unlawful inducements to community sporting clubs with the intent of encouraging members or supporters to open new betting accounts. These inducements included benefits that are expressly prohibited under Victorian law for the purpose of recruiting customers.

Under Victorian regulations, wagering operators are not permitted to offer incentives such as credit, vouchers, rewards or other benefits as inducements to open a new betting account. They must also ensure that promotional material is not sent to individuals who have chosen to self-exclude from gambling services.

Tribunal review and dismissal of appeal

OkeBet challenged the VGCCC’s findings and penalty at VCAT, but the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in full, affirming the regulator’s decision and the severity of the conduct. In its written reasons, the Tribunal highlighted that self-exclusion is a legal harm-minimisation mechanism that signals an individual’s clear wish not to be marketed gambling services. According to the Tribunal, evidence showed that some self-excluded persons who received OkeBet promotional material experienced harm, including reports of significant distress.

The Tribunal also elaborated on the nature of the breaches involving community sporting clubs. Testimony during the hearing revealed that affiliate arrangements or inducement agreements were discussed between OkeBet representatives and several local clubs. While not all of these agreements were ultimately executed, the evidence was sufficient for the Tribunal to confirm that the conduct amounted to a contravention of the Act’s prohibitions on inducements to attract new customers.

Regulatory perspective and harm minimisation

Suzy Neilan, Chief Executive of the VGCCC, emphasised the importance of the Tribunal’s ruling for protecting vulnerable people and community institutions from gambling-related harm. Neilan stated that local sporting clubs such as football and netball organisations are often central to their communities and should not be used as vehicles for promoting gambling, especially where the promotional efforts involve rewards or other inducements that are prohibited by law.

Neilan explained that self-exclusion is a critical safeguard that reflects an individual’s explicit choice not to receive further marketing or engage in wagering activities. Regulated operators are legally obliged to respect this decision and take reasonable steps to ensure that self-excluded persons do not receive promotional communications from wagering services.

Legal and industry implications

The VCAT ruling reinforces the legal obligations imposed on wagering service providers in Victoria and sets a robust precedent for how enforcement agencies will interpret harm minimisation practices and marketing compliance. The action against OkeBet illustrates the regulatory scrutiny that operators face when they engage in affiliate marketing or third-party promotions that straddle community institutions.

Industry experts point out that the decision serves as a cautionary example for other operators who might use community networks or promotional offers to expand their customer base. Gambling regulators in Australia and internationally have increasingly emphasised the need for stringent adherence to self-exclusion protocols and harm minimisation measures.

Broader context of responsible gambling enforcement

This enforcement action sits within a broader regulatory environment where authorities are actively monitoring the gambling industry for compliance with responsible gambling standards. Victorian regulators have previously taken action against bookmakers for breaches of customer safety obligations, such as sending promotional material to individuals who have self-excluded or offering incentives that contravene codes of conduct. These decisions reflect growing regulatory focus on protecting individuals from gambling-related harm and ensuring that operators uphold both their legal and social licence to operate.

The outcome of this case signals that wagering operators must invest in systems and compliance frameworks to respect self-exclusion registers, avoid prohibited inducements and manage marketing communications responsibly to minimise the risk of harm to their customers.

Next steps and penalty proceedings

While VCAT has upheld the liability and formal censure against OkeBet, the Tribunal will later consider submissions on penalty, which may influence whether any adjustments to the financial sanction are made. The timing and outcome of further penalty submissions will provide clarity on how similar breaches might be penalised in future regulatory actions.

Conclusion

The VCAT decision affirming the VGCCC’s ruling against OkeBet represents an important affirmation of the regulatory powers to enforce responsible gambling laws in Victoria. It reinforces the principle that operators must respect self-exclusion decisions and avoid offering any unlawful inducements in their marketing practices. This case serves as a significant lesson to wagering providers about their obligations to protect vulnerable individuals and uphold community standards.

FAQs

What is the decision by VCAT in the OkeBet case?
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal upheld the VGCCC’s ruling that OkeBet breached Victorian gambling laws and confirmed a AU$100,000 fine with formal censure.

Why was OkeBet fined by the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission?
OkeBet was fined for sending promotional gambling material to self-excluded individuals and offering prohibited inducements to community sporting clubs to attract new customers.

What breaches of law did OkeBet commit?
OkeBet’s breaches included marketing to self-excluded customers and providing inducements in violation of Victoria’s Gambling Regulation Act 2003, which bars these practices.

What does self-exclusion mean in this context?
Self-exclusion is a legal harm-minimisation tool that allows individuals to opt out of receiving gambling offers or access to wagering services and operators must respect this choice.

Why are inducements to sporting clubs prohibited?
Inducements such as credit, vouchers and rewards that encourage new betting account sign-ups are prohibited under Victorian law because they can promote gambling harm.

Did OkeBet’s appeal succeed at the Tribunal?
No. VCAT dismissed OkeBet’s appeal and upheld the original decision and findings of the regulator.

What evidence did the Tribunal consider?
The Tribunal reviewed evidence showing that self-excluded individuals received promotional material and that local clubs were approached for inducement arrangements.

How does this decision impact the gambling industry?
The ruling sends a strong message to wagering operators about strict compliance requirements for harm minimisation, self-exclusion and prohibited inducements.

Will there be further legal proceedings?
VCAT will consider submissions on the penalty later in the year, which could influence the final sanction.

What obligations do wagering providers have in Victoria?
They must avoid sending marketing to self-excluded persons and cannot offer prohibited inducements to attract new customers or use community institutions to promote gambling.

How can individuals report gambling provider misconduct?
Individuals can lodge complaints with the VGCCC if they believe a gambling provider has failed to comply with legal obligations or responsible gambling practices.