Australia’s communications regulator has ordered ISPs to block Casea and Crown96 for violating gambling laws, highlighting the ongoing challenge of restricting offshore casino access and the lack of legal online options
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has issued new blocking orders targeting two offshore gambling brands, Casea and Crown96, after determining both sites violated the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. The move is part of ACMA’s ongoing campaign to restrict access to illegal online casinos and protect Australian consumers from unregulated operators.
Latest Enforcement Actions
ACMA’s latest action requires Australian internet service providers to block access to Casea and Crown96, both of which were found to be offering prohibited gambling services to residents. The regulator maintains a growing list of blocked domains, which now includes 1,788 illegal gambling and affiliate websites. Since ACMA began its enforcement program in 2017, 230 services have exited the Australian market voluntarily following regulatory intervention.
Persistent Challenges With Offshore Sites
Despite the expanding list of blocked domains, critics argue that blocking alone is not enough to eliminate illegal gambling. Many countries that have implemented similar measures continue to face new mirror sites and alternative domains targeting their citizens. In Australia, once a site is blocked, operators often launch new domains to bypass restrictions, making enforcement a continuous process rather than a permanent solution.
Consumer Risks and Regulatory Gaps
ACMA has repeatedly warned consumers about the risks of using offshore gambling sites, emphasizing that these operators are not subject to Australian consumer protections or regulatory oversight. With no licensed online casinos available domestically, players seeking online casino games must turn to offshore providers, which ACMA considers unsafe. This regulatory gap effectively gives illegal sites a monopoly over the online casino market, leaving the regulator to reactively enforce blocks and issue fines. In addition to targeting operators, ACMA has also penalized companies for advertising breaches and cautioned influencers against promoting illegal gambling content. For example, the regulator previously imposed a $1.9 million penalty on Tabcorp for sending marketing messages to self-excluded players and has warned public figures about promoting unlicensed gambling platforms.
Broader Regulatory Context
The challenge of regulating offshore gambling is not unique to Australia. As seen in other jurisdictions, financial institutions and regulators have taken steps to address regulatory uncertainty in the gambling sector. For instance, JPMorgan Chase recently ended banking services for Polymarket, a federally licensed event exchange, amid ongoing questions about compliance and oversight. This example, detailed in a related report on regulatory uncertainty affecting gambling platforms, highlights the complex interplay between financial services, regulation, and the evolving online gambling landscape.
Understanding the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 is essential for interpreting ACMA’s enforcement actions. The Act prohibits most forms of online casino gaming for Australian residents, allowing only certain regulated betting products. As a result, any online casino offering slots or table games to Australians is considered illegal, regardless of where the operator is based. This legal framework means that enforcement relies heavily on blocking access and penalizing advertising, rather than licensing and regulating domestic online casinos. For players, this creates a market where only offshore, unregulated options are available, increasing both risk and regulatory complexity.
