Entain Group has entered into an 18-month court-enforceable undertaking with Australia’s Communications and Media Authority following an investigation that uncovered more than 500 breaches of the country’s self-exclusion framework. The findings represent a major compliance failure for the parent company of Ladbrokes AU and Neds AU, though the ACMA’s decision to accept the undertaking rather than issue an infringement notice signals a measured regulatory approach focused on systemic remediation.

How the breaches occurred

The ACMA’s investigation started with seven consumer complaints and a targeted review of 50 BetStop registrants. What they found was troubling: Entain’s systems failed to prevent account openings for individuals on the National Self-Exclusion Register, and worse, failed to close existing accounts once customers self-excluded.

Take the most egregious case. A customer self-excluded in September 2023 but continued wagering on one of two linked accounts for over 10 months before Entain finally closed it. Then there’s the individual who successfully opened two new accounts in May 2024, just days after Entain’s own systems had confirmed the person remained registered with BetStop.

On top of that, investigators discovered 23 promotional electronic messages sent to customers that lacked mandatory BetStop content as required under Australian regulations.

Systemic gaps and remedial action

ACMA member Carolyn Lidgerwood nailed the core issue: Entain’s infrastructure simply couldn’t adequately identify and consolidate accounts across its service portfolio. One account, for instance, remained active for more than a year after self-exclusion.

In response, Entain has already rolled out several technical upgrades. The company deployed a “single customer view” system that consolidates customer accounts across its brands, ramped up account verification frequency to hourly cycles for active customers, and updated promotional messaging to incorporate mandatory self-exclusion register content.

What the undertaking means

Rather than levying immediate penalties, the ACMA accepted Entain’s proposed remediation framework, which includes an independent 18-month compliance review. The undertaking is legally binding and enforceable through the courts. Fail to meet obligations or resist recommended improvements, and the company faces court-ordered financial penalties.

This outcome reflects a pragmatic balance. The ACMA has secured systemic change and independent oversight without triggering the formal infringement process. For Entain, the undertaking provides a pathway to demonstrate sustained compliance. But any future breaches would likely invite harsher consequences.

The case isn’t isolated. ReadyBet and Unibet have both faced ACMA action in recent years for similar failures to respect self-exclusion registrations, indicating that compliance gaps remain an industry-wide concern as Australian regulators tighten their oversight of wagering operators.

What the team thinks

Carl Mitchell says:

Philippa’s coverage rightly highlights the severity of Entain’s self-exclusion failures, but I’d argue the real story here is what this tells us about the broader challenge of scaling compliance across multiple jurisdictions, particularly when acquiring established brands like Ladbrokes AU and Neds AU that come with legacy systems. The ACMA’s decision to pursue an undertaking rather than penalties suggests they’re acknowledging that these weren’t wilful breaches so much as systemic gaps, which actually puts pressure on the entire industry to audit their own self-exclusion mechanisms before regulators come knocking. This should serve as a wake-up call for operators that player protection isn’t just about ticking boxes, it’s about genuinely investing in the infrastructure that keeps vulnerable customers protected.