LEGAL GUIDE

Australia Online Casino Laws and Legal Access

Updated October 2026

Licensed

Available in US

Fast payouts

18+ Only

A clear guide to prohibited casino services, permitted wagering products, offshore sites and the limits of Australian player protections.

What Australians Can Legally Access: Pokies, Casino Games and the Interactive Gambling Act

Australia does not treat every form of online gambling in the same way. The key legal distinction is between wagering products that may be offered under relevant state or territory licences and casino-style products that are prohibited when supplied online to Australian customers.

The Interactive Gambling Act 2001 makes it illegal for gambling providers to offer certain online services to people in Australia. That rule applies to the provider’s conduct. It does not create an Australian offence for a person merely because they place a bet with an offshore service. However, the absence of a player offence does not turn an offshore casino into a legal or locally licensed option.

Why online pokies and casino games are prohibited

Online pokies, roulette, blackjack and live-dealer casino tables fall within the category of prohibited interactive gambling services when they are offered to an Australian customer. The classification is based on the product being supplied online, not on whether the website looks professional, accepts Australian visitors or holds a licence from another country.

This means that an operator cannot lawfully provide an online real-money casino service to Australian customers under an Australian casino licence. No such domestic licence exists. Australia has no gambling licence for online casino games because offering that product to Australians is against the law.

The same principle applies to common casino formats:

• Pokies: Online versions are prohibited interactive gambling services when offered to Australians.
• Roulette: Online roulette supplied to an Australian customer is prohibited.
• Blackjack: Online blackjack is covered by the same restriction.
• Live-dealer tables: A streamed or hosted table does not become lawful merely because a real dealer is present.
• Other online casino games: The underlying presentation, software provider or payment interface does not change the legal category where the service is an online casino product.

The important mechanism is the supply of the service to an Australian customer. A foreign location, a foreign company and a foreign licence do not replace the Australian authorisation that would be required for a product the law permits. For online casino games, that domestic authorisation is not available.

What “licensed” means in this context

The word licensed must be tied to a specific jurisdiction and product. A foreign licence may show that an operator is recorded or supervised under the rules of another jurisdiction. It does not authorise that operator to offer online pokies, roulette, blackjack or live-dealer casino games to Australian customers.

Likewise, Australia’s gambling system does not have a general licence that covers every type of gambling activity. Gambling is regulated at both federal and state or territory levels, and the relevant permission depends on the product being supplied. A licence for one form of wagering cannot be treated as a blanket approval for online casino games.

This is why a claim such as “licensed casino” requires careful separation of three questions:

1. Which regulator issued the licence?
2. What product does that licence cover?
3. Does it authorise supply to customers in Australia?

For online casino games, the answer to the third question cannot be created by referring to a foreign licence. There is no domestically licensed real-money online casino for Australian players.

How online sports betting differs

Online sports betting occupies a different legal category. It is legal and licensed at the state and territory level, subject to the applicable regulatory framework. A wagering operator may therefore be authorised to provide sports betting if it holds the relevant local licence and complies with the rules attached to that licence.

That distinction does not extend to online casino products. A licensed wagering operator may have permission to accept bets on sporting events while having no permission to provide online pokies, roulette or blackjack. Treating the operator’s status as transferable from one product to another produces the wrong result.

The same product-based reasoning applies to race wagering. A licence connected with betting on horse racing or other races does not create authority to operate an online casino. Sports and race wagering are regulated activities that may be licensed; online casino games offered to Australian customers are prohibited interactive gambling services.

A simple comparison is useful:

The table does not mean that every sports or race wagering website is authorised. It means that those products can be licensed within Australia, unlike online casino games. The operator still needs the relevant permission for the particular wagering activity.

The role of the Interactive Gambling Act

The Interactive Gambling Act establishes the federal boundary around prohibited online gambling services. Its practical effect is directed primarily at providers and the supply of services. A website’s availability on a device is therefore not proof that its activity is lawful.

The Act also explains why an Australian customer may encounter a foreign casino website without that website having a right to serve the Australian market. Technical accessibility and legal authorisation are separate questions. A site may load, display Australian currency or describe itself as international, yet still be offering a prohibited service if it supplies online casino games to an Australian customer.

For that reason, “I can access the website” is not a reliable legal test. The relevant question is whether the provider is permitted to offer that product to customers in Australia. For online pokies, roulette, blackjack and live-dealer casino games, the answer is no domestic casino licence exists.

The practical boundary for readers

If you are comparing gambling products in Australia, start with the product rather than the brand name. Sports and race wagering may operate within local licensing arrangements. Online casino games do not have an equivalent Australian licensing path.

This also prevents a common category error: applying the rules for licensed online betting to casino games. A wagering licence does not make an online casino lawful, and a foreign casino licence does not become an Australian licence by accepting Australian visitors.

The legal boundary is therefore clear even though Australia’s broader gambling system is divided between federal and state or territory rules. Online sports betting and race wagering can be licensed under the relevant local framework. Online pokies, roulette, blackjack and live-dealer casino games are prohibited interactive gambling services when offered to Australian customers.

Bonuses and Promotions Under Australia’s Gambling Rules

A bonus is not legally separate from the gambling service it is designed to promote. The wording may refer to a welcome offer, a deposit match, free spins, a free bet or a referral reward, but the legal question comes first: what product is the promotion encouraging, and may that product lawfully be offered to people in Australia?

Casino Bonuses & Promotions in Australia

Explore Australian casino bonuses and promotions, including minimum-deposit offers, no-deposit bonuses and free spins listed…

Australia does not have one overarching gambling statute or a single gambling authority. Responsibility is divided between the federal government and the states and territories. For online services, however, the federal Interactive Gambling Act 2001 establishes an important boundary. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) monitors compliance with and enforces Australia’s interactive gambling laws.

That boundary matters before you assess the value of any promotion. A generous-looking offer cannot make a prohibited service lawful. Nor can labels such as “international”, “offshore” or “Australian-friendly” change the legal position.

Why a casino bonus cannot be treated as a lawful Australian offer

Online casino services offered to Australian customers fall within the prohibited category under the Interactive Gambling Act. This covers products such as pokies, roulette, blackjack and live-dealer casino games. Because the underlying service cannot lawfully be provided to Australians, an inducement intended to bring Australian customers to that service cannot be presented as a lawful local promotion.

The same reasoning applies whether the incentive appears on a website, in an email, through an affiliate page, in social media content or inside an advertisement. The format does not change the connection between the offer and the prohibited service. A “bonus” is still promotional material if its purpose is to encourage an account opening, a deposit or continued play.

This is why a page should not describe an offshore casino bonus as an available Australian offer. Doing so can create the false impression that the operator has permission to provide online casino gambling in Australia. No Australian casino licence exists for that product. A foreign licence also does not authorise an operator to serve Australian customers.

The difference between a gambling product and a promotion

Promotional compliance is often misunderstood because attention is placed on the terms of the offer rather than its legal object. Conditions may explain how an incentive operates, but they do not answer whether the promoted service may be offered in Australia.

Consider the sequence:

1. An operator offers an online gambling product.
2. The operator attaches an inducement to that product.
3. The inducement is distributed to attract or retain customers.
4. The promotion therefore supports the provision of the underlying service.

If the underlying online casino service is prohibited for Australian customers, changing the bonus language does not remove that problem. Calling the incentive a reward, loyalty benefit, rebate or promotional credit does not create an Australian authorisation.

The same principle prevents a publisher from presenting a prohibited offer indirectly. A page may avoid the word “bonus” and instead describe a “special deal”, “exclusive reward” or “limited promotion”. If the practical purpose is to encourage an Australian customer to use a prohibited online casino, the different wording does not make the material compliant.

What licensed Australian gambling promotion can and cannot imply

Local operators may offer gambling products only when they hold the relevant licence. In Australia, that licensing framework applies to permitted gambling categories such as sports and race wagering, not to a domestically licensed real-money online casino. Promotional content must therefore stay within the product and licence actually held by the operator.

A lawful licence claim is not a general permission to advertise every gambling product. An operator authorised for one category cannot rely on that authorisation to promote another category that is prohibited. The name of a state or territory regulator, a corporate registration, or a licence connected with wagering does not establish permission to provide online casino games.

Promotional material should therefore be read as a legal representation, not merely as marketing copy. When an offer suggests that a service is approved, available or authorised for Australian customers, the statement needs to match the operator’s actual legal position. A vague reference to being “regulated” is not enough if it leaves the reader to assume that an Australian casino licence exists.

Foreign licences and promotional wording

Offshore operators may hold a licence issued outside Australia. That fact can describe the operator’s foreign regulatory position, but it does not turn the promotion into an Australian-authorised offer. A Malta or Curacao licence is not an Australian casino licence and does not override the Interactive Gambling Act.

The distinction is especially important in promotional comparisons. A foreign licence should not be used as shorthand for “safe for Australians”, “approved in Australia” or “legally available in Australia”. Those statements combine separate legal questions:

• whether a foreign authority has issued a licence;
• whether the licence is current under that foreign system;
• whether the operator may provide the specific product;
• whether the operator may provide it to Australian customers.

Only the first questions concern the foreign licence. It does not answer the final question. Treating it as if it did would mislead readers about the legal status of the offer.

The provider-focused nature of the rules

The Interactive Gambling Act targets the provider rather than the player. Australians are not committing a crime merely by placing bets at offshore sites. That distinction should be stated accurately, because it does not convert an offshore promotion into a lawful or protected offer.

The provider-focused rule also does not mean that every advertisement or affiliate message is acceptable. Promotional publishing can help an operator reach Australian customers, and the legal framework places attention on conduct that supports the provision of prohibited or unlicensed interactive gambling services. A publisher should not advertise or knowingly facilitate such services.

Accordingly, responsible wording avoids inviting an Australian customer to claim, activate or use a casino incentive. It also avoids instructions that help the reader bypass the legal boundary. Describing the restriction is different from directing a customer towards the prohibited service.

A practical test for promotional compliance

Before relying on any gambling promotion, separate the claims instead of treating the offer as one package:

If the product is an online casino service, the analysis stops at the legal boundary: it cannot be presented as a lawful Australian offer. If the promotion relies on a foreign licence, that licence must not be described as authorising service to Australians. If the copy encourages use of a prohibited service, changing the promotional label does not solve the compliance problem.

This approach also keeps responsible gambling information in its proper place. A warning about gambling harm is useful, but it cannot cure an unlawful promotion. Compliance begins with whether the service and the inducement may be offered to the intended audience at all.

Payments and Withdrawals: What the Legal Framework Changes

Payment questions cannot be separated from the legal status of the service receiving the money. In Australia, the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 makes some online gambling services prohibited when they are offered to Australian customers. The restriction therefore changes the relationship between a customer, a gambling provider and any payment intermediary.

This does not create a lawful Australian online-casino deposit or withdrawal channel. No domestically licensed real-money online casino exists for Australian players. Licensed Australian operators are limited to products such as sports and race wagering, which are governed through the applicable state and territory licensing systems.

The payment relationship depends on the product

For a licensed wagering operator, the payment relationship is connected to a regulated betting account. The operator must hold the relevant local licence, and its transaction processes operate within the rules applying to that wagering service. The existence of a payment method does not, by itself, make every gambling product lawful.

That distinction matters because an offshore casino may display familiar banking brands or offer a balance in Australian dollars. Those features do not turn the service into an Australian-licensed provider. A payment interface shows how money may be requested or transferred; it does not establish that the underlying gambling service may legally be supplied to an Australian customer.

The same principle applies to withdrawals. A withdrawal request is not evidence that the operator is authorised in Australia. It is simply a transaction between the customer and the provider, subject to the provider’s own procedures and the wider payment environment. If the service itself is prohibited, the presence of a deposit or withdrawal function does not remove that legal issue.

What offshore status changes

Offshore casinos are providers based outside Australia. They may rely on a foreign licensing framework, but a foreign licence does not authorise them to serve Australian customers. Malta and Curacao are examples of jurisdictions associated with offshore licensing, and their regulators maintain public registers for checking a licence number and its status. That check can help establish what a foreign licence claims to cover. It cannot convert the licence into an Australian casino licence.

The practical risk is that the customer’s payment relationship is not supported by the protections attached to a locally licensed wagering service. The service may become unavailable, a transaction may be interrupted, or access to the website may be restricted. The customer can also face difficulty identifying which entity is responsible for a disputed balance or delayed transaction.

These are not reasons to treat offshore deposits or withdrawals as approved alternatives. They explain why a payment page should not be read as a legal assurance. A provider can technically accept a request while still operating outside the conditions required for lawful supply to Australian customers.

ACMA enforcement can affect access

The Australian Communications and Media Authority monitors compliance with and enforces Australia’s interactive gambling laws. Where a site operates in breach of the Interactive Gambling Act, ACMA can direct internet service providers to block it. Blocking is therefore relevant to payments even when the payment processor itself has not been described as blocked: if the customer cannot reliably reach the provider, account access and transaction communication may be disrupted.

Published figures require careful dating because the available reports do not match. One reported position states that, as of August 2025, ACMA had blocked 1,296 illegal sites and affiliates since 2019. Another states that, as of March 2026, ACMA had directed internet service providers to block 1,564 illegal gambling and affiliate websites. These figures should not be silently combined or treated as the same measurement. They refer to different dates and use different wording about blocked sites, affiliates and directions to internet service providers.

ACMA action also includes voluntary market exits. Reports state that more than 220 illegal gambling services have voluntarily withdrawn from the Australian market following regulatory action. For a customer, that means a provider’s availability can change independently of the customer’s account history or expectations about a pending transaction.

Why a successful transfer proves little

A completed transfer demonstrates only that the relevant payment systems processed that particular instruction. It does not prove that:

• the gambling service holds an Australian licence;
• the product is lawful to provide to Australian customers;
• the provider is supervised by ACMA;
• future deposits or withdrawals will remain available; or
• an account balance will receive the protections associated with a locally licensed service.

This is especially important when a provider uses a foreign licence claim as a substitute for local authorisation. The licence number can be checked against the relevant foreign regulator’s register, but that check answers a limited question: whether the foreign licence exists and what status the register shows. It does not answer whether the provider may lawfully offer prohibited online casino services in Australia.

The player and the provider are treated differently

The Interactive Gambling Act targets the provider rather than the player. Australians are not committing a crime merely by placing bets at offshore sites. That distinction should not be misunderstood as approval of offshore casino payments. It describes who the legislation principally targets; it does not give an offshore operator permission to provide prohibited interactive gambling services.

For the customer, the important consequence is practical rather than criminal: the provider may be outside the Australian licensing system, the service may be subject to blocking, and the transaction relationship may be harder to resolve if access or processing fails. A customer should not infer from the absence of a criminal offence for the player that the deposit or withdrawal is an authorised Australian gambling transaction.

What the reforms indicate

Reports show that the amount of money Australians lost on gambling services based outside Australia has reduced since the reforms. This supports a regulatory interpretation of payment controls and enforcement: restricting unlawful services can reduce the flow of money to offshore providers. It does not mean that every attempted transaction is automatically stopped, nor does it establish that a particular payment route is lawful.

The relevant test remains the legal status of the gambling product and provider, not the apparent convenience of the payment method. For Australian customers, locally licensed wagering and prohibited offshore casino services must therefore be kept separate. A payment can be technically possible without being a sign of Australian authorisation, and a withdrawal request can exist without creating a protected or approved route for online casino funds.

Australian Casinos and Rankings: How to Read a Licence Claim

A ranking can compare websites, but it cannot change their legal status. This distinction matters in Australia because no domestically licensed real-money online casino exists for Australian players. A page may describe an offshore casino as highly rated, feature a foreign licence, or place an operator near the top of a list. None of those labels creates an Australian casino authorisation.

The first task is therefore to identify what the ranking is actually comparing. Is it discussing licensed sports and race wagering, or is it describing casino products that Australian law does not license for local customers? Treat those categories separately. An Australian wagering licence does not extend to online pokies, roulette, blackjack or live-dealer casino tables.

What an Australian licence can demonstrate

ACMA publishes a register of Australian-licensed interactive wagering service providers. This is the relevant starting point when a ranking discusses an operator that claims to offer licensed wagering services in Australia. The register can help you check whether the named business appears among Australian-licensed providers.

The result must still be read narrowly. An entry in an Australian wagering register supports a claim about the licensed service covered by that entry. It does not prove that the same operator holds an Australian casino licence. No Australian gambling licence exists for casino games because offering that product to Australians is against the law.

Queensland illustrates why operator lists require careful interpretation. There is no current holder of an interactive gambling licence in Queensland, while UBET QLD Limited is currently the exclusive licence holder for race and sports wagering in that state. These are different regulatory facts, not competing descriptions of one casino market. A ranking that combines them under a general “Australian casino licence” label is losing the distinction between wagering and casino products.

The Northern Territory Racing Commission acts as the de facto regulator for national online bookmakers. That role relates to bookmakers and wagering services. It should not be presented as evidence that a casino website has been approved to provide real-money casino games to Australian customers.

How to check a licence claim

A licence claim should contain enough information to test it. Look for the legal entity named by the operator, the regulator said to have issued the licence, the licence number and the status shown in the regulator’s register. A logo by itself is not verification.

You can cross-reference the licence number on the regulator’s official website. The key question is not simply whether the number appears somewhere online. Check whether the registered entity matches the operator named in the ranking, whether the licence is current, and what type of activity it covers.

This process separates several claims that are often compressed into one sentence:

• the operator has a licence;
• the licence belongs to the named legal entity;
• the licence is active;
• the licence covers casino products;
• the licence permits service to customers in Australia.

A register may support the first three claims without supporting the last two. The scope and territory of the authorisation must be read separately from its existence.

Foreign registers are not Australian approval

Offshore operators commonly hold licences from Malta or Curacao rather than an Australian casino licence. The Malta Gaming Authority and Curacao eGaming maintain public registers where you can check a licence number and its status. Those registers are useful for testing whether a foreign licensing statement is accurate.

They answer a foreign-regulatory question: does the named entity appear in that authority’s records, and what status does the record show? They do not answer the Australian question: is the operator authorised to provide prohibited online casino services to Australian customers?

That difference should appear plainly in any ranking. A Malta or Curacao licence may identify the jurisdiction that supervises the operator abroad. It does not convert an offshore casino into an Australian-licensed casino, and it does not override Australia’s restrictions on providing online casino games to Australian residents.

A careful description would therefore distinguish the claims:

How to read rankings without treating them as approval lists

Ranking criteria are not regulatory categories. A list may sort operators by design, game range, payment features, customer support or editorial preference. Those criteria can explain why a website appears above another, but they cannot establish legality.

Be especially cautious with headings that use “licensed casinos” without naming the licensing jurisdiction. The word “licensed” is incomplete until the issuer, licence number, legal entity and permitted activity are identified. A foreign licence should be described as foreign. An Australian wagering entry should be described as wagering-related. Neither should be reworded as an Australian casino approval.

The same rule applies to badges such as “regulated,” “verified” or “trusted.” These are conclusions, not evidence. A verifiable licence claim requires a regulator and a register. A ranking that supplies neither leaves you unable to distinguish an active licence from an expired, unrelated or misapplied number.

You should also check whether the ranking treats a corporate group as though every brand has the same licence. The registered licence holder may be a particular legal entity, while the website uses a different trading name. That mismatch does not automatically prove wrongdoing, but it prevents a simple assumption that the brand is covered. The entity relationship and licence scope need to be clear.

A practical classification

For a ranking to be legally precise, place each entry into one of three categories:

1. Australian wagering provider: the operator can be checked against ACMA’s register or the relevant wagering authority, and the claim is limited to the licensed wagering activity.
2. Foreign-licensed operator: the operator’s licence can be checked in a foreign regulator’s register, but that licence is not Australian authorisation.
3. Unverified claim: the ranking does not provide a regulator, licence number or matching legal entity, so the statement cannot be independently confirmed from the cited register.

The third category is important. Absence of a verifiable record is not proof that every statement about the operator is false, but it is a reason not to treat the ranking as a licensing reference.

A reliable ranking should make the legal boundary visible rather than burying it in a disclaimer. In Australia, licensed operators are limited to lawful wagering categories, while no domestically licensed real-money online casino exists. Foreign registration can describe an offshore operator’s regulatory home; it cannot authorise prohibited casino services for Australian customers.

Mobile Access, Player Safety and the Limits of Offshore Sites

A mobile website can make a gambling service appear available, but technical access does not establish lawful availability. For Australian customers, the key distinction is between what a phone can display and what a provider may legally offer. Online casino games, including pokies, roulette, blackjack and live-dealer tables, are prohibited interactive gambling services when supplied to customers in Australia. A mobile interface does not change that classification.

This matters when evaluating offshore casinos. A site may load in a browser, accept an account registration or present a mobile layout, yet still be operating outside the Australian legal framework. An overseas licence may regulate the operator in another jurisdiction, but it does not authorise the provision of prohibited online casino services to Australian residents. Treat mobile availability as a technical condition, not as evidence of approval, safety or lawful status.

Why mobile access can disappear

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) monitors compliance with Australia’s interactive gambling laws and can direct internet service providers to block websites operating in breach of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. Blocking is therefore part of the practical access environment. It can prevent a domain from loading through a particular internet connection, although a change in what appears on your screen should not be mistaken for a change in the underlying legal position.

The available ACMA figures contain a stated source discrepancy. One version reports that ACMA had blocked 1,296 illegal sites and affiliates since 2019 as of August 2025. Another version reports 1,564 illegal gambling and affiliate websites blocked as of March 2026. These figures should not be merged or presented as one uninterrupted total: they refer to different reporting points, and the supplied records do not explain the difference in counting or scope.

The same issue applies to services leaving the market. The supplied information describes both “more than 220 illegal gambling services” that voluntarily exited after ACMA action and “over 220 online gambling services” that withdrew since the reforms. The wording differs, so the safest reading is that more than 220 services are reported to have withdrawn, while the exact category counted is not identical in every source.

A blocked domain is not the only possible outcome. An offshore service may stop accepting Australian customers, withdraw from the market, change its domain or become inaccessible after enforcement action. These changes can interrupt account access and communication without creating a right to continued service. Mobile compatibility is consequently unstable when it depends on a provider that is outside the domestic licensing system.

Mobile convenience does not reduce gambling risk

Online gambling has been identified as the fastest-growing gambling segment. Mobile access can place gambling activity in more situations: at home, while travelling, or during ordinary daily routines. The important safety question is not whether a page is easy to open. It is whether the pattern of use remains observable and controlled.

A useful check is to examine behaviour rather than interface features:

• Are deposits, losses or time spent being tracked independently of the operator’s display?
• Can gambling be stopped without attempting to recover losses?
• Is access becoming more frequent because the service is always available?
• Are gambling decisions being made when tired, distressed or under financial pressure?
• Is money needed for ordinary expenses being used for gambling?

These questions do not turn an offshore site into a safe or lawful service. They help identify harm indicators before the technical convenience of mobile access conceals them. If gambling is becoming difficult to control, Gambling Help Online and Lifeline provide support pathways in Australia. BetStop – the National Self-Exclusion Register™ is the national self-exclusion service and should be considered as part of a broader decision to stop gambling, rather than as a substitute for understanding the legal limits on a site.

What the participation figures show

The supplied market data also has a defined time scope. In 2022, 11% of Australians had gambled online during the previous six months, compared with 8% in 2020. This indicates growth in online participation during that period, but it does not show that every online gambling product was lawful. Legal online wagering and prohibited online casino services must not be treated as one category.

The loss figures also require careful wording. One supplied figure reports approximately $32 billion in gambling losses during 2022–2023. Another reports approximately $25 billion lost on legal forms of gambling each year. These are not interchangeable measurements: they use different periods and distinguish legal gambling in one version. The discrepancy should remain visible rather than being converted into a single market estimate.

A further risk estimate comes from a single affiliate-style industry review, not from an official national gambling register or a universal statutory measure. That review places problem gambling prevalence between 0.5% and 1.0%, with a further 1.4%–2.1% described as being at risk of developing problems. Because the source and subject are limited, these ranges should be read as reported estimates, not as an established Australian norm.

A practical boundary for assessing a mobile site

You can separate four different questions:

1. Can the page load? This is a technical question.
2. Does the operator hold a foreign licence? This can be checked through the relevant overseas authority’s register where a genuine licence number is supplied.
3. May the provider offer the product to Australian customers? For online casino games, the answer is no under the stated Australian framework.
4. What happens if access, funds or support are disrupted? ACMA blocking, market withdrawal and offshore dispute arrangements can limit practical recourse.

Only the first question is answered by a mobile browser. The second concerns foreign regulation, not Australian authorisation. The third is the decisive legal boundary for prohibited online casino services. The fourth explains why mobile access can be unreliable even when a website appears functional.

Do not treat a working mobile site, an app-like layout or a foreign licence badge as proof that an offshore casino is authorised for Australia. ACMA’s blocking activity and the reported market withdrawals show that access can be restricted or removed. Player safety therefore begins with recognising the limits of the service, monitoring gambling harm indicators and using Australian support resources when control is becoming difficult.

Prepared by the Trusted Australia Casino editorial staff.