Supreme Court of Victoria Orders Notification in Class Action Over Entain Fast Code Betting
TL;DR — Australian bettors who lost on Entain’s Fast Code service are automatically part of a class action alleging IGA breaches via automated phone workarounds. The Supreme Court of Victoria requires customer notifications for the period from March 4, 2019 to March 4, 2025. Entain denies illegality and has counterclaimed for recovery of winnings.
SCCG Take — This action tests the exact boundaries of telephone betting exceptions. Operators must verify full voice compliance to limit class action exposure in regulated markets.
Australian customers who lost money through Entain’s Fast Code betting service have been automatically included in a class action alleging the product breached the country’s gambling laws.
The Supreme Court of Victoria has ordered Entain, which operates the Neds and Ladbrokes betting brands in the Australian market, to notify all affected customers about the proceedings and explain their rights. Entain disputes the allegation that its Fast Code service was unlawful.
Fast Code and Australia’s In-Play Betting Rules
The case revolves around in-play betting, which is generally prohibited online in Australia under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (IGA) once a sporting event has started. An exception exists for wagers placed wholly by telephone.
Fast Code worked using a code-based system. Customers selected an in-play wager online and received an alphanumeric code, which could then be communicated through an automated telephone service to place the bet. Similar systems had previously been used by other operators, including William Hill’s Click to Call product.
Changes to Australian gambling legislation introduced in 2016 and enacted the following year required telephone betting services to be conducted wholly by voice. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) investigated the use of Fast and Quick Code products and concluded in December 2023 that several operators had breached the IGA. ACMA ultimately did not pursue enforcement action after operators completed the system changes, as reported by GamblingNews.
Entain’s Defense and Counterclaim
The class action covers customers who used Entain’s Fast Code Service between March 4, 2019, and March 4, 2025, and allegedly suffered losses from those wagers. Entain has maintained that its service complied with Australian gambling laws. Following changes to the system, Fast Codes were generated before sporting events began and were generic rather than being created from individual customers’ selections.
Entain has filed a counterclaim. The company argues that if losing bets must be refunded, it should also be entitled to recover winnings previously paid to customers who participated in the Fast Code betting system.
Reporting: GamblingNews
Generated by SCCG’s automated editorial system from published source reporting. SCCG Management holds editorial responsibility.
Automated phone workarounds are now litigation targets — operators using code-based systems must prove strict voice compliance or face exposure.
We track compliance flashpoints across every regulated market, and this case defines how tightly courts will parse telephone betting exceptions. The automated-code model is now a class action magnet. Operators scaling in markets with channel-specific rules — Australia, but also evolving frameworks in Europe and Latin America — need airtight product-law alignment before launch.
- Class action alleges Entain's Fast Code breached IGA phone-betting voice requirements, 2019–2025
- Supreme Court of Victoria orders customer notification; Entain denies illegality, counterclaims for winnings
- Case tests whether code-based automation satisfies 'wholly by telephone' exceptions under compliance review
SCCG angle: SCCG's regulatory and product advisors help operators audit betting products against local channel rules before they become litigation anchors. We connect you to compliance counsel and product engineers who have navigated ACMA reviews, IGA interpretations, and multi-jurisdiction voice-vs-digital distinctions — so your system passes scrutiny the first time.
Gaming, betting and prediction markets — the desk’s read, every weekday.
Subscribe →