Examples of cases with locks of popular brands
The Australian Communications and Media Commission (ACMA) is actively fighting unlicensed online casinos, including brands that are internationally known but violate the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. Blocking is carried out through DNS filtering, interaction with banks and public warnings. Below are real examples of such cases.
1. Blocking the Rich Palms Casino (2021)
Reason: Providing online slots and board games without an ACMA license, and ignoring regulator notifications.
Measures: ACMA issued a formal cease-and-desist order, after which providers blocked access to the site.
Fallout: Australia players lost access to accounts; withdrawal of funds became possible only through foreign payment systems.
2. The PokerStars Case (2020)
Reason: Provision of online poker prohibited for Australian users without separate permission.
Measures: ACMA sent a warning and put the site on the block list.
Implications: The platform exited the Australian market, returning funds to players, but lost significant audience share.
3. "Fortune Clock" and Related Brands (2022)
The reason: A network of interconnected sites masquerading as different brands but using the same payment infrastructure. Lack of license and violation of KYC rules.
Measures: Blocking more than 20 domains in one investigation.
Implications: ACMA has shown a willingness to act against network structures rather than individual sites.
4. «Bondibet» и «Golden Reels» (2019)
Reason: Accepting bets and providing games with real money without a license, failure to comply with the requirements for returning winnings.
Measures: Blocking sites and entering into the official "Blacklist ACMA."
Consequences: Loss of confidence of players, as well as withdrawal of partnership agreements with a number of affiliates.
5. Major case "Red Dog Casino" (2023)
Reason: Promotion through Australian advertising channels despite ACMA's outright ban.
Measures: Blocking the site and transferring materials to international structures to suppress the operation of mirrors.
Implications: The rapid creation of site clones was thwarted by ACMA coordination with overseas regulators.
Key takeaways from the cases
1. ACMA acts not only against small operators, but also against well-known brands with an international reputation.
2. Violations of advertising and marketing are considered as serious as the lack of a license.
3. Locks affect the entire infrastructure at once - domains, mirrors, payment gateways.
4. Players in unlicensed casinos are left without legal protection, which increases the risks of financial losses.
Conclusion:
1. Blocking the Rich Palms Casino (2021)
Reason: Providing online slots and board games without an ACMA license, and ignoring regulator notifications.
Measures: ACMA issued a formal cease-and-desist order, after which providers blocked access to the site.
Fallout: Australia players lost access to accounts; withdrawal of funds became possible only through foreign payment systems.
2. The PokerStars Case (2020)
Reason: Provision of online poker prohibited for Australian users without separate permission.
Measures: ACMA sent a warning and put the site on the block list.
Implications: The platform exited the Australian market, returning funds to players, but lost significant audience share.
3. "Fortune Clock" and Related Brands (2022)
The reason: A network of interconnected sites masquerading as different brands but using the same payment infrastructure. Lack of license and violation of KYC rules.
Measures: Blocking more than 20 domains in one investigation.
Implications: ACMA has shown a willingness to act against network structures rather than individual sites.
4. «Bondibet» и «Golden Reels» (2019)
Reason: Accepting bets and providing games with real money without a license, failure to comply with the requirements for returning winnings.
Measures: Blocking sites and entering into the official "Blacklist ACMA."
Consequences: Loss of confidence of players, as well as withdrawal of partnership agreements with a number of affiliates.
5. Major case "Red Dog Casino" (2023)
Reason: Promotion through Australian advertising channels despite ACMA's outright ban.
Measures: Blocking the site and transferring materials to international structures to suppress the operation of mirrors.
Implications: The rapid creation of site clones was thwarted by ACMA coordination with overseas regulators.
Key takeaways from the cases
1. ACMA acts not only against small operators, but also against well-known brands with an international reputation.
2. Violations of advertising and marketing are considered as serious as the lack of a license.
3. Locks affect the entire infrastructure at once - domains, mirrors, payment gateways.
4. Players in unlicensed casinos are left without legal protection, which increases the risks of financial losses.
Conclusion:
- Examples of real locks show that ACMA applies comprehensive measures of influence and does not make exceptions for high-profile brands. Players are encouraged to check the casino license on the official ACMA website to avoid access and withdrawal issues.
