Get 125% / $2,500 on 1st deposit!
New players only. Exclusive Welcome Bonus of up to $2,500
Entain is under fresh compliance pressure in Australia after regulators found failures in how Ladbrokes AU and Neds AU handled BetStop self-excluded customers.
Good to Know
Australia created BetStop to give self-excluded players a clean break from licensed wagering. For Entain, that protection did not work as required.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority found more than 500 breaches linked to Entain brands Ladbrokes AU and Neds AU. The problems covered open accounts, new sign-ups, and missing BetStop messaging in customer communications.
Some customers held several accounts across both Entain platforms. ACMA said Entain systems failed to connect those accounts to one customer profile. One account stayed open for more than a year after the person had registered with BetStop.
ACMA member Carolyn Lidgerwood said:
“When someone signs up to BetStop, wagering companies must close all of that person’s accounts held within their services.
“When people register for self-exclusion, there should be no way for them to open new accounts for licensed wagering services in Australia,”
The scale of the findings also creates a harder question. ACMA opened the investigation after seven consumer complaints and an internal review of 50 BetStop-registered customers. Yet that limited sample led to more than 500 breaches.
BetStop has recorded almost 60,000 registrations since its August 2023 launch. More than 37,000 people remained actively excluded as of March 2026. For those users, weak account matching can turn a protection system into a failed promise.
ACMA did not issue a formal infringement notice, saying that option was not available in the circumstances. Instead, Entain accepted an 18-month court-enforceable undertaking. The company must bring in an independent consultant, review compliance and governance controls, create an action plan, and report future BetStop breaches.
Entain said it has already added a single customer view across its brands and increased BetStop checks to “hourly active account washing”. In submissions to ACMA, the company said the breaches happened during “the initial 12-18 month period of the BetStop registration process during which wagering service providers developed an enhanced understanding of the ways in which individuals sought to circumvent the scheme.”
The Australian issue also sits beside another regulatory case. AUSTRAC filed Federal Court proceedings in December 2024 against Entain Australia over alleged failures tied to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing laws.
Two regulators have now challenged different parts of the same local compliance framework. That gives the case relevance outside Australia, especially for large operators running several brands in regulated markets.
Professor Sally Gainsbury, Director of the Gambling Research and Policy Unit at the University of Sydney, told European Gaming: “Individuals who are seeking assistance to limit their gambling need systems to be easy to use, but difficult to work around.
“Ensuring that full protections are in place for people who have self-excluded needs to be a priority for operators and regulators, as breaches undermine the integrity of the system and reduce people engaging with this. No system will be perfect, but following regulatory requirements is essential.”
Europe already uses similar central self-exclusion systems, including OASIS in Germany and CRUKS in the Netherlands. The key technical task remains the same: connect every account from the same customer to one exclusion profile, even across multiple brands.
For Entain, the next test is not only fixing Australia. Regulators in other markets will want proof that single customer view controls work across the wider group, not just inside one country after an enforcement case.