Australia’s ACMA Adds 12 More Illegal Gambling Domains as Operators Pivot to Mirror Sites
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has extended its list of prohibited domains by another 12 websites. The regulator continues to respond to the rise of illegal online gambling venues under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001.
This latest enforcement targets operators offering services without the necessary licenses, including online casino games of chance that are not allowed in Australia. From my perspective after decades observing regulatory enforcement in mature markets, such incremental actions highlight both commitment and the structural limits of domain-level blocking.
ACMA Names 12 New Operators as Illegal in Australia
ACMA has moved to suspend the domains of operators including 7Signs, Crhomabet, Donbet, Duospin, Freshbet, Slots Gem, Jacks Club, Lucky Start, and others. These sites have been operating without licenses and, in some cases, offering prohibited products.
The watchdog is known for investigating websites and then ordering Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the country to cut access. This approach reflects a consistent pattern of individual action against unlicensed operators.
For gaming executives with client-partners in regulated markets, the message is clear. Enforcement is persistent, yet the targets keep shifting.
Scale of ACMA’s Blocking Effort
Since the measure was introduced, ACMA has suspended 1,751 illegal gambling and affiliate websites. It has also gone after a handful of suppliers, with some 230 services deciding to withdraw voluntarily.
These figures demonstrate the regulator’s sustained focus. Yet the numbers also reveal the challenge of keeping pace with an adaptive illegal market.
ACMA blocks certain domains, but operators are usually prepared to launch new mirror websites. This cat-and-mouse dynamic has become the defining feature of Australia’s online enforcement landscape.
Operational Realities and the Mirror-Site Challenge
The issue of illegal gambling websites remains. Most of these operators have chosen to operate illegally and have adapted to the enforcement actions.
This has caused an issue for ACMA, as the regulator takes a painstaking approach to reviewing and banning specific websites. The process is deliberate by design, prioritizing precision over speed.
From a strategic standpoint, this creates friction for licensed operators who compete for the same Australian players. Unlicensed sites can appear under new domains faster than many executives can update their compliance dashboards.
Risks, Limitations, and the Push Beyond Domains
One risk in this model is enforcement fatigue. When mirror sites proliferate, the cumulative effort yields diminishing returns on player protection and market integrity.
ACMA has expanded the scope of its operations, focusing on not only websites but also people inside the country helping these operators reach customers. It has gone after influencers to disincentivize prominent Internet personalities from advertising gambling websites.
This shift toward upstream actors, including local promoters, represents a necessary evolution. Still, it carries its own limitations. Identifying and sanctioning individuals demands different evidentiary thresholds and can raise questions around free speech and intermediary liability.
A counterargument often heard in industry circles is that overly aggressive domain blocking can inadvertently push marginal players toward even less traceable offshore options. The data on voluntary withdrawals offers some optimism, yet the persistence of mirror sites suggests the underlying incentive structure has not yet been fundamentally altered.
The Bottom Line
Australia’s latest move against 12 additional illegal gambling domains underscores ACMA’s ongoing commitment under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. With 1,751 sites already suspended and 230 voluntary withdrawals recorded, the regulator is applying steady pressure while expanding its focus to influencers and local enablers.
For industry executives, the inflection point is clear. Purely reactive domain blocking will not suffice against agile operators who treat enforcement as a cost of doing business. Client-partners should evaluate layered compliance strategies that combine technical monitoring, influencer due diligence, and proactive engagement with regulators.
What happens next will matter. If ACMA can translate domain-level wins into measurable reductions in Australian player traffic to illegal venues, other jurisdictions may adopt similar hybrid models. The coming quarters will test whether sustained enforcement, paired with upstream disincentives, can finally tilt the balance toward licensed operators.
