Palmer Bookmaking Pty Ltd, which runs Palmerbet, agrees to an 18-month court-enforceable undertaking with the Australian Communications and Media Authority. The decision comes after an investigation found the private operator breached Australia’s online gambling self-exclusion requirements.
After the recent fine for Dabble, the ACMA determined that Palmerbet continued to provide wagering services to an individual who had registered with BetStop, which is Australia’s National Self-Exclusion Register. The operator also failed to close the customer’s account within the required period.
The investigation launched in April 2025 after the ACMA received a complaint from the affected users. Afterwards, Palmerbet provided submissions to the regulator in May and June 2025, followed by a further submission in November in response to the ACMA’s initial findings.
Accepting Bets from Self-Excluded Customer
In the investigation report, ACMA explained the customer signed up with BetStop on September 2, 2023, while their betting account was created in August 2018.
Despite enrolling with BetStop, the user was allowed to gamble with Palmerbet across 18 separate days between December 8, 2024 and February 22, 2025. However, the operator did not dispute that the customer used their account during this period.
According to ACMA’s investigation, the consumer placed 312 bets during the said period, while the company agreed with the findings.
Under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, Australian casinos must not provide betting services to an individual registered with the National Self-Exclusion Register. Ultimately, ACMA concluded that Palmerbet had violated this requirement on 18 occasions.
The inquiry further uncovered that Palmerbet had failed to close the customer’s account as soon as practicable after the individual became self-excluded. Instead, the account remained active until February 22, 2025, when Palmerbet was finally notified that the customer was registered with BetStop.
It was concluded that, had Palmerbet used accurate customer information when checking the BetStop register, it would have received a positive match much earlier.
Incorrect User Details Affected the Checks
One of the key findings was the accuracy of the personal information that Palmerbet used when checking the customer against BetStop.
The regulator found that Palmerbet had recorded an incorrect date of birth and a shortened version of the customer’s first name. Those details were subsequently used in requests to the National Self-Exclusion Register, which resulted in no matches.
ACMA reiterated that gambling providers must maintain accurate and up-to-date customer information when making register checks. It also noted that its guidance specifically required providers to use customers’ full legal first names and not shortened names or nicknames.
Nevertheless, ACMA determined that Palmerbet had already improved its processes for new customers in July 2023, and now requires date of birth verification for customers. However, the regulator said those improvements were not extended to certain existing customers, including the complainant.
Palmerbet had also used a targeted communication campaign before the launch of BetStop, asking selected customers to review and update their account details. However, the complainant was not included in the campaign and did not undergo the same re-verification process as a selected group of customers.
ACMA concluded that Palmerbet had not taken the same level of reasonable precautions and due diligence for the complainant as it had for other customers.
535 Account-Closure Violations
The investigation distinguishes between the 18 occasions on which Palmerbet provided betting products to the registered individual and the much larger number of breaches associated with the failure to close the account.
ACMA claims that Palmerbet should have been able to close the account by September 7, 2023, within 24 hours of a register check that would have produced a positive match if customer information was accurate.
Due to the obligation to close the account continued each day that it remained open beyond the practicable deadline, the ACMA found 535 separate infringements of the relevant provision of the Interactive Gambling Act.
Therefore, the regulator’s conclusions identified 18 contraventions for providing wagering offerings to a registered individual and 535 breaches for failing to close the customer’s account in time.
No Marketing Breaches
The ACMA also examined the case of potential marketing violations by Palmerbet.
It found that Palmerbet had sent 34 regulated electronic messages to the customer after their BetStop registration, consisting of 33 emails and one SMS. But the regulator determined that these messages were regulated electronic messages and had been sent to an address belonging to a registered individual.
However, the regulator did not find a breach as it concluded that Palmerbet was not reckless as to whether the relevant email address and telephone number belonged to a BetStop-registered individual. Therefore, no breaches of the relevant marketing provisions were established.
Furthermore, the operator was found to have complied with the separate requirement to promote BetStop in its regulated electronic messages.
Palmerbet Commits to Independent Review
As part of its 18-month court-enforceable undertaking, Palmerbet has agreed to undergo a comprehensive independent review of its compliance systems. The operator has also committed to invest in implementing recommendations from the review.
Additionally, Palmerbet has repaid all deposits made by the affected customer after their BetStop registration and before the account was closed in February 2025.
A court-enforceable undertaking is a formal commitment accepted by the ACMA. If Palmerbet fails to comply with its terms, the regulator can apply to the Federal Court to enforce the undertaking.
ACMA believes this case further underscores the importance of the accuracy of customer information used for BetStop checks. The regulator’s investigation report states that simply conducting register checks is not sufficient where a provider relies on inaccurate or unverified information that can prevent a customer from being correctly identified.
The ACMA’s findings reinforce that wagering operators are expected to maintain systems capable of identifying customers who self-exclude and to act promptly once a positive match is established.
