ACMA Imposes Court-Enforceable Sanction on Palmerbet for Self-Exclusion Breaches
Australian regulator finds Palmerbet committed 535 violations of self-exclusion rules, triggering an 18-month enforceable undertaking and requirements for a full compliance review.
Key Takeaways
- Palmerbet was found to have breached self-exclusion rules on 535 separate occasions.
- ACMA imposed an 18-month court-enforceable undertaking and mandated an independent compliance review.
- Palmerbet must submit an implementation plan and report future violations within one month.
- The operator has repaid all deposits to the affected self-excluded customer.
- Dabble was fined AUD $1 million for similar self-exclusion violations earlier this month.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has imposed a court-enforceable sanction on Palmer Bookmaking Pty Ltd, trading as Palmerbet, for failing to properly close an account registered on the national self-exclusion register BetStop. ACMA determined that each day Palmerbet left the account open after it became practicable to close constituted a separate breach, totalling 535 violations between September 2023 and February 2025.
ACMA’s findings on Palmerbet’s self-exclusion violations
According to ACMA, Palmerbet did not close a customer’s wagering account promptly after the customer registered on BetStop, Australia’s national self-exclusion register. During a three-month period from December 2024 to February 2025, Palmerbet accepted 312 bets from the self-excluded individual. The regulator stated:
"The obligation to close the account was an ongoing one, and a separate contravention occurs each day where an IWP (internet wagering provider) fails to close a customer’s wagering account beyond when it was reasonably practicable to close the account." — statement by ACMA
This led to a determination that Palmerbet committed 535 breaches of the applicable Australian gambling regulations. Palmerbet responded that its "tiered precautions and diligence were proportionate to the risks associated with its customer base, having regard to its size and capability." ACMA did not accept this defence, underlining that the compliance obligation applies irrespective of operator size.
Enforceable undertaking and compliance requirements for Palmerbet
To address the violations, ACMA accepted an 18-month court-enforceable undertaking from Palmerbet. Key requirements in this undertaking include:
- Commissioning a comprehensive, independent review of Palmerbet’s compliance systems and processes
- Appointing an ACMA-approved external consultant to conduct the review and produce a detailed report
- Submitting an implementation plan to ACMA within 60 days of the consultant’s report
- Investing in any necessary changes to meet compliance recommendations
- Reporting any future self-exclusion or other gaming regulation breaches within one month of discovery
Palmerbet has also returned all deposits made by the affected self-excluded customer during the relevant period.
Palmerbet’s regulatory and operational backdrop
Palmerbet, licensed in New South Wales, is a family-run business led by Andrew Palmer and his sons Grant, Matthew, and Adrian. The company’s online sports betting operation entered the market in 2013. Palmerbet’s website describes the business as “100% Australian owned and operated”, with a 60-year heritage in the industry.
The undertaking imposed by ACMA mandates not only structural compliance reforms but also close ongoing oversight by an independent party—an approach signalling increased scrutiny of responsible gambling practices across Australia’s regulated market. Findings and changes stemming from this review may be relevant to other operators active in regulation and sports wagering sectors.
Wider industry context: multiple operators under scrutiny
Earlier this month, ACMA issued a AUD $1 million fine to Dabble, another operator found to have breached self-exclusion requirements by failing to close 157 accounts belonging to BetStop-registered individuals. The scale and recurrence of such breaches underscore the regulator’s intensified enforcement activity and the heightened compliance expectations for licensed operators.
Other regulated markets will be tracking ACMA’s use of enforceable undertakings and large-scale fines as a model for responsible gambling oversight in the wake of self-exclusion system rollouts.
What comes next for Palmerbet and the sector
Following publication of the independent review, Palmerbet must implement the findings within 60 days, with ACMA monitoring progress. Any further non-compliance must be reported within a month, or the operator risks further enforcement.
The regulator’s detailed expectations and willingness to enforce daily-accumulating breaches mark a clear warning to Australian internet wagering providers that self-exclusion system obligations must be proactively and promptly managed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What specific breaches did ACMA find Palmerbet committed?
ACMA found that Palmerbet failed to close a BetStop-registered customer account as soon as practicable, resulting in 535 individual breaches—one for each day the account remained open past the practical closure point.
What steps must Palmerbet take under the court-enforceable undertaking?
Palmerbet must commission an independent compliance review, engage an ACMA-approved external consultant, submit an implementation plan within 60 days of the review's completion, and report any further gaming regulation breaches within a month of discovery.
How did Palmerbet respond to the findings?
Palmerbet argued its risk controls were proportionate to its customer base, but ACMA rejected this defence and enforced compliance obligations applicable to all operators regardless of size.
Has ACMA taken similar action against other operators recently?
Yes, earlier this month ACMA fined Dabble AUD $1 million for failing to close 157 self-excluded accounts, demonstrating increased regulatory scrutiny of self-exclusion compliance.
What are the repercussions if Palmerbet fails to comply with the new obligations?
Failure to implement compliance recommendations or to report future breaches within mandated timeframes could result in further sanctions or escalation by ACMA.
Tags
About the author
Eleanor Whitfield
Regulatory Affairs Correspondent
Eleanor Whitfield tracks gambling legislation, licensing decisions, and regulator enforcement across key markets — from the UKGC, MGA, and Germany's GGL to Spain's DGOJ and the state-by-state map in the Americas. The reporting answers three questions precisely: what changed, where, and who it affects, with jurisdictions, effective dates, and penalty figures named exactly as published. Compliance officers and operators read Eleanor Whitfield to know which rulebook moved before their next board meeting.
More from Eleanor Whitfield
