After close to three years of delay, political hesitation and behind‑the‑scenes compromise, the federal government has finally set out its position with respect to the ‘You Win Some You Lose More’ inquiry. The government’s response, accompanied by detailed FAQs and draft legislation, offers the clearest indication yet of where advertising reform is likely to land.
What has emerged is neither the sweeping prohibition some had called for, nor the incremental change industry had hoped for. Instead, it is something more calibrated: a structured regime aimed at reducing the prevalence and saturation of wagering advertising, particularly among children, without eliminating it entirely.
The result is a policy that is, by design, a compromise. Critics argue it falls short, pointing to its somewhat convenient timing alongside the federal budget and describing it as “timid” or “half‑hearted”. Industry, by contrast, warns it may go too far, potentially driving consumers to offshore operators beyond Australia’s regulatory reach. The channelisation of customers is an issue challenging policy makers, regulators and industry participants alike.
This is not a debate the reforms resolve. It is one they seek to manage. This piece focuses on how that compromise plays out in the regulation of wagering advertising.
A recalibrated, not revolutionary, approach
The most striking feature of the reforms is what they do not do. Despite sustained calls for a complete ban, the government has opted for what it describes as a “balanced approach”. This balance is delivered through targeted restrictions, such as:
- a ban on wagering advertising during live sporting events on television and radio between 6:00am and 8:30pm (and for five minutes either side). Importantly, horse, harness and greyhound racing have been explicitly excluded from the definition of “sporting events”
- a prohibition on in‑stadium advertising and sponsorship on players’ and officials’ uniforms, with existing contracts grandfathered
- a cap of three wagering advertisements per hour, per channel, on broadcast television between 6:00am and 8:30pm
- radio blackout periods during school drop‑off and pick‑up times
- a default ban on online advertising, subject to a “triple lock” requiring login, age gating and the ability to opt out
- bans on the use of “notable people”, including celebrities and athletes, and on the promotion of betting odds
Collectively, these measures are intended to reduce how often and in what formats Australians encounter gambling advertising, particularly in family and sporting contexts. Advertising is not eliminated, but it will be more tightly controlled and, in some cases, confined to more limited or deliberate viewing environments.
Disentangling sport and wagering
A central pillar of the reforms is the effort to weaken the link between professional sport and gambling. The ban on in‑stadium advertising and uniform sponsorship targets some of the most visible forms of promotion, although many operators had already begun to wind these back themselves.
The exemption for racing reflects its long‑standing and intrinsic connection to wagering, while the broader restrictions on sport respond to more recent public concern about being able to watch sport without seeing prevalent gambling advertising.
The digital pivot: from restriction to effective ban
If broadcast reforms focus on visibility, the online framework goes further. Under the “triple lock” model, wagering advertising is to be prohibited by default unless users are logged in, over 18 and able to opt out. The rules apply broadly across online services, from streaming and social media to search, podcasts and general websites and apps.
For many online platforms, the compliance burden may prove significant, and those that do not implement the required controls will not be able to display wagering advertising at all. The need to build and implement the “triple lock” functionality ahead of the implementation deadline, proposed to be 1 January 2027, may act as a deterrent for online platforms from participating altogether.
It also raises a number of challenges for wagering operators. Operators will likely need to interface with consent and preference settings across multiple platforms to determine when a user has opted in to wagering advertising. This will likely require operators to match the identities of customers in their records, with the records held by the online platform. Regulatory guidance will be critical in understanding expectations in relation to the “reasonable steps” required to comply in this regard.
Online content services that are dedicated to racing or wagering are proposed to be exempt from the online wagering advertising requirements.
Rewriting how gambling is marketed
The reforms extend beyond placement to substance. A ban on the use of celebrities, sports stars and influencers, together with a prohibition on promoting betting odds, marks a clear break from current advertising practice.
These techniques have been common features of the advertising landscape and, it is claimed, have contributed to a normalisation of wagering within entertainment and sport. Their removal is likely to push operators towards more restrained, product‑focused messaging and may prompt a broader rethink of how they engage with consumers. There is, however, limited clarity on what constitutes a “celebrity” or “influencer”, and this will need to be the subject of further guidance in due course.
Certainty, with a runway
Despite the additional detail, implementation is not immediate. The reforms are expected to commence from 1 January 2027, with key elements to be refined through legislation and consultation. This provides clearer direction but leaves ongoing uncertainty in execution, particularly in relation to definitions, exemptions and the operation of the digital framework.
Reform without finality
Taken together, the reforms should reduce visibility, but their practical operation, particularly in digital environments, remains uncertain and may produce unintended consequences as participants, including wagering operators and media platforms, seek to comply with the new requirements.
The government’s position reflects competing pressures: strong public concern about gambling-related harm alongside the commercial realities of sport, media and wagering operators. The result is a middle path that reduces visibility while preserving, in limited form, the ability to advertise.
Whether that balance proves sustainable remains to be seen. What is clear is that the current era of gambling advertising is drawing to a close. In its place will be a more tightly controlled environment where visibility is the exception rather than the norm. The success of the regime will depend less on its design and more on the detail and how it is applied.
Daniel Lovecek is a principal at Senet and co-leads the legal practice alongside Julian Hoskins. He is a highly experienced gambling law specialist with more than 15 years’ experience in the sector. Prior to joining Senet, Lovecek held senior roles at Tabcorp for over 12 years. His background spans complex regulatory, legal and governance matters across Australia’s wagering, gaming and media landscape.
Alexander Norrish is a senior associate at Senet, advising clients across all sectors of the gambling industry. He supports both domestic and international organisations in navigating complex regulatory frameworks and establishing compliance-driven cultures. Prior to joining Senet, Norrish was part of the Solicitors Assisting the Royal Commission into the Management of Police Informants (Lawyer X).
The post Australia’s gambling advertising reforms: clarity at last, but at what cost? first appeared on EGR Intel.
Alexander Norrish and Daniel Lovecek of law firm Senet lay out why the era of gambling marketing is set to be replaced by a more tightly controlled environment where visibility is the exception rather than the norm
The post Australia’s gambling advertising reforms: clarity at last, but at what cost? first appeared on EGR Intel.