The Australian administration sent shockwaves through the internet gaming industry in 2016 with the introduction of the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill. The bill sought to address deficiencies that permitted activities such as internet poker and in-play sports wagering to operate in a gray area.

Despite becoming legislation, the amendment sparked considerable controversy. Numerous conservative politicians argued that it was essential to safeguard Australian citizens from the increasing prevalence of online gambling platforms targeting them. They advocated for more stringent regulations.

Conversely, individuals like Senator David Leyonhjelm expressed strong opposition. He deemed the entire situation absurd, contending that Australians already possessed ample avenues for engaging in poker, such as brick-and-mortar casinos and organized competitions. He believed the government was merely attempting to adapt to a law that had become obsolete in the digital era.

Leyonhjelm highlighted that the initial 2001 law, intended to shield minors from online gambling, was riddled with flaws and easily circumvented. From his perspective, the 2016 amendment was equally ineffectual.

This is utterly absurd! Individuals can still engage, even with tools like virtual private networks or overseas accounts,” Lionel Yarme declared. He further highlighted the paradox: although the legislation seeks to combat game manipulation by prohibiting in-play wagering on athletic contests, these modifications might inadvertently yield the opposite outcome. “In Britain, authorized providers facilitate live sports betting, generating tax revenue for the government. They yielded hundreds of millions of pounds in income last year. Furthermore, they possess the capability to scrutinize wagers for questionable behavior and trace financial transactions to detect manipulated matches.”

Presently, platforms like 888poker and Vera&John have terminated operations within Australia, with Pokerstars anticipated to follow suit shortly. It appears these operators prefer to avoid being discovered operating within a jurisdiction characterized by “minimal or nonexistent regulation.” Undoubtedly, numerous gaming enterprises will soon be seeking an exit strategy.

During a third-quarter financial results conference, Amaya’s Chief Financial Officer, Daniel Sebag, notified shareholders that the company is also contemplating a departure from the Australian market. “We provide poker services in Australia and are presently evaluating the relevance of the proposed legal framework to player-versus-player games of skill. In its current form, we might restrict Australian players should the legislation be enacted.”