The long-running debate in Australia about online gambling ads continues to rumble on with all sides offering opinions on what is a complex matter. This is particularly relevant for free-to-air TV networks, sports organisations such as the NRL and AFL, and the horse racing industry, all of which stand to be significantly impacted by changes to advertising.
Notwithstanding all of that, the landscape has most certainly changed over the course of a decade with online betting. As the industry has matured, overseas conglomerates have taken up more space, alongside the emergence of off-the-shelf betting platform providers offering white-label skins in return for potentially lucrative revenue-share agreements. According to the ACMA, as at 19 August 2026 there were 213 licensed trading names on its register, although this includes telephone-only and non-operational services. This has meant a crowded space and subsequently lots of noise, wanted or unwanted.
For platforms such as Google and Meta, a growing number of operators has increased the number of advertisers competing in auction-based environments, while TV networks and digital publishers have benefited from increased demand for wagering inventory.
So here we are in August 2026. The long-awaited reforms have now passed Parliament, with some of the key measures including:
- Frequency capped TV ads at 3 per hour between 5am – 8.30pm
- No wagering ads during live sport across broadcast and online content services, alongside bans in stadiums and on sports jerseys
- Online ads permitted where the user is logged in, is 18 or over, and has not opted out of wagering advertising
- New ‘opt-out’ register to be introduced
- A ban on celebrities/influencers/athletes promoting gambling
- A ban on promoting sporting odds in ads
- No advertising during children’s programming
- No direct marketing for 14 days after opening an account
- Restrictions on commissions linked to customer gambling activity
In Simple Terms, What Does This Mean For Digital Advertising?
Well, it’s really difficult to say at the moment, because as always with these things, the details will determine a lot of the core outstanding nuances. Nevertheless, let’s try to dissect a few of the points:
TV Advertising Caps
If connected TV and BVOD are treated as online platforms rather than broadcast television, the opportunity becomes particularly interesting. BVOD services generally operate within logged-in environments, potentially giving platforms the ability to establish a user’s age and satisfy two elements of the triple lock. The remaining challenge is the wagering advertising opt-out mechanism and how that status is communicated between the register, platforms and advertising technology providers.
Online Ads For Users 18+, Logged In & Able To Opt Out
This is tricky and it’s going to be hard to manage for anyone trying to police it. But let’s take a look:
Firstly, let’s start with Google. In conversations with us, Google has indicated that ads in sensitive categories are already particularly well managed. Users must be logged in in some capacity to verify that they are aged 18 or over. They also have the ability to opt out of gambling ads via their settings. The opt-out register is going to be difficult because under Google’s current personalised advertising policy, gambling is treated as a sensitive-interest category, meaning advertiser-curated audiences such as Customer Match and first-party “Your Data” segments are not supported. That potentially creates a technical conflict between the legislation and Google’s current advertising policies. Google could conceivably develop an Australia-specific compliance mechanism, use platform-side suppression, or change its gambling policy specifically for Australian wagering and allow exclusion lists. This is a potential banana skin in itself, because it’s a policy Google has for many sensitive categories, and may open the door for other industries to request the change.
Programmatic
When it comes to display and video programmatic advertising, things become more complicated. The Google Display Network might be able to handle this if exclusion lists are allowed; however, other demand-side platforms may need to find different ways of targeting eligible users. Many DSPs have the ability to share data with media networks, and stitch together their journeys. For example, The Trade Desk’s Unified ID 2.0 enables anonymous identifiers via email addresses or phone numbers, for the purposes of cross-channel targeting. In simple terms, a logged-in publisher can use an email address or phone number to generate a UID2 advertising token. The identifier is normalised and hashed as part of the process, converted into a UID2 and encrypted into a token that can then be passed through participating SSPs into the programmatic bidstream. From there, advertisers could theoretically create private marketplace deals around authenticated users. If the government’s opt-out register can be integrated into that identity chain, opted-out users could also be suppressed. There will also need to be a mechanism for users to opt out after seeing a video or display ad. This could potentially involve a link within the creative directing users to the opt-out register. However, an ongoing suppression feed would then need to communicate that status back to the DSP. Depending on the identity technology being used, matching may not be instantaneous, raising another question: how quickly will an opt-out be expected to take effect?
Social Media
Social media could be comparatively straightforward because the major platforms operate within logged-in environments and already hold age information about users. The outstanding question is whether the platforms’ existing age-assurance processes satisfy the final regulatory requirements. Given the wider debate around age assurance in Australia, that’s probably a topic for another article!
There are a few problems with the above which make it difficult to manage internally and externally. Firstly, it relies on data matching to be 100% accurate, which in practice is rarely achievable. A user might have one email address for regular day-to-day items, and another for streaming services. Secondly, all of this relies on those regulating the changes understanding the ecosystem of data matching and the pitfalls surrounding it. The regulatory framework will therefore need to account for some margin of error. Finally, what does “logged in” actually mean? With today’s identity-matching capabilities, a user could be logged into Chrome, for example, while browsing the open web and still be considered a known user. Whether that satisfies the legislation, or whether the user must be logged directly into the service carrying the advertisement, a closed walled garden such as Uber, for instance, is an important distinction that still needs clarification.
Restrictions On Commissions Linked To Customer Gambling Activity
This is very broad and the ramifications of this could span from business development managers to affiliates. As we are an affiliate management digital agency, we’ll focus on this side of things. This measure appears particularly relevant to revenue-share agreements, where an affiliate’s remuneration is directly linked to subsequent customer gambling activity. Fixed CPA arrangements may sit differently because remuneration is tied to the initial acquisition rather than ongoing gambling activity. However, this remains an area requiring clarification, particularly if an initial deposit itself constitutes customer gambling activity for the purposes of the legislation.
The nuance on affiliates goes a little further, and depending on how the partner chooses to acquire customers, could fall into the category of advertising. For example, affiliates that are prominent on social media, or perhaps use web or in-app display advertising would be subject to the advertising restrictions, and would need to adhere to the measures around that. SEO-led affiliates present another interesting grey area. While they don’t necessarily “push” advertising to users in the same way as paid social or display, their websites may still contain wagering advertising, operator promotions and affiliate links that fall within the scope of the reforms. How the triple-lock requirements apply to these environments will therefore be an important area for clarification. To complicate things further, websites predominantly focused on horse racing could find themselves in a different position, with dedicated racing online content services receiving particular treatment under the Bill. This follows a history of racing content receiving specific treatment under some wagering advertising rules.
Ultimately, these reforms may not spell the end of wagering advertising in Australia, but instead accelerate its shift towards a more controlled, authenticated and accountable digital ecosystem, and for marketers and affiliates that can adapt, there may still be plenty of opportunity on the table.
