Australia’s communications and gambling regulator previously found that some of the country’s largest betting brands breached federal in-play betting rules through their use of Fast Codes and Quick Codes.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority investigated services operated by:
The original matter is no longer unresolved. ACMA concluded that the operators’ earlier Fast Code systems did not comply with the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. However, after the companies changed how their codes were generated, the regulator decided not to take further enforcement action at that time.
Fast Codes and Quick Codes were short alphanumeric combinations used to help customers place live sports bets by telephone.
A customer could:
The code already contained important information about the event, market and selected outcome.
That was the central regulatory problem. The wager was not being communicated entirely during the telephone call because key parts of it had already been selected through the website or app.
Australian law generally prohibits online in-play betting on sporting events after they have started.
A limited exception applies to bets placed wholly by telephone. For that exception to apply, the customer must communicate the relevant bet selection, bet type, stake and confirmation through the voice call.
ACMA found that the earlier Fast Code systems individually generated a code after a customer constructed a specific live bet online. As a result, the event, selection and bet type had already been communicated electronically rather than wholly by telephone.
The regulator therefore found that the affected services breached subsection 15(2A) of the Interactive Gambling Act by providing prohibited in-play betting services to customers physically located in Australia.
ACMA’s findings covered three operators and four betting brands:
| Operator | Betting brands | Code name |
|---|---|---|
| Entain Group Pty Ltd | Ladbrokes and Neds | Fast Codes |
| Hillside (Australian New Media) Pty Ltd | bet365 | Quick Codes |
| Sportsbet Pty Ltd | Sportsbet | Fast Codes |
Although four brands were named, Ladbrokes and Neds were both operated by Entain.
No financial penalty was imposed in relation to this specific ACMA investigation.
After the findings, the operators changed their systems so that codes would be:
Because the companies took steps to bring the services into compliance, ACMA decided not to take further enforcement action at that time.
This distinction is important. The operators were found to have breached the rules, but the matter did not result in an ACMA fine or court penalty.
The compliant version of the service could no longer create a unique code only after a customer built a live bet through the app.
Instead, the bookmaker had to generate eligible codes before the sporting event began. Those codes had to remain generic and independent of a particular customer’s online actions.
The changes were intended to ensure that customers were not using an app or website to communicate the essential details of a live bet after the event had started.
A bettor could still use a pre-generated code during a telephone call, but the operator could not create that code in response to the customer constructing an individual live wager online.
ACMA separately examined PlayUp’s use of Fast Codes and found that its system did not breach the same prohibition.
The regulator found that PlayUp generated its codes before the event commenced, independently of any customer’s selection. The codes were generic and available on the same basis to all customers.
That structure matched the revised model later adopted by the other operators and demonstrates that Fast Codes were not automatically unlawful. The legal issue depended on how and when the code was created.
Although ACMA did not impose further enforcement action, Sportsbet’s earlier Fast Code service later became the subject of a separate class action in the Supreme Court of Victoria.
The proceeding covers people who:
The claim alleges that the service was illegal under the Interactive Gambling Act, that Sportsbet engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and that affected customers may be entitled to recover their losses. Sportsbet denies the allegations and is defending the proceeding.
The case does not include wagers on horse, harness or greyhound racing.
As of July 2026, the proceeding remains a contested legal claim rather than a final court finding against Sportsbet.
A separate class action has also been filed concerning Fast Code bets placed through Ladbrokes and Neds.
That proceeding concerns customers who made losing in-play bets through the brands’ Fast Code service between 4 March 2019 and 4 March 2025. It similarly alleges that the service was unlawful and seeks compensation for affected bettors.
The class actions are separate from ACMA’s regulatory investigation. ACMA’s decision not to pursue further enforcement did not prevent private plaintiffs from bringing claims against individual betting companies.
The case clarifies an important distinction in Australian betting law.
Customers can generally place pre-match sports bets through a bookmaker’s website or app. However, after a sporting event has started, online in-play betting is prohibited unless a valid exception applies.
The telephone exception does not simply require the customer to make a phone call at the end of the process. The essential details of the wager must be communicated wholly by voice.
Australian bettors should therefore be cautious about any service that allows them to:
The availability of a feature inside a licensed betting app does not by itself guarantee that the method complies with federal interactive gambling law.
The Fast Code investigation shows how regulators assess the substance of a betting transaction rather than its final step.
The operators argued in effect that customers completed the bet over the phone. ACMA focused instead on where the wager’s essential information was first communicated.
That approach means bookmakers cannot turn an online in-play transaction into a lawful telephone bet simply by requiring a final confirmation call.
The investigation also demonstrates that regulatory outcomes can change when operators promptly redesign a product. In this case, system changes avoided additional ACMA enforcement, but they did not eliminate the possibility of later private litigation.
The original February 2024 article suggested that Ladbrokes, Neds, bet365 and Sportsbet were still waiting to learn what ACMA would do.
The current position is clearer:
The Fast Code matter was not simply a warning about betting technology. It established that the telephone exception for live sports betting must be genuine.
A customer cannot construct a personalised in-play bet through an app and then make it lawful merely by quoting a code over the phone. The central selection details must be communicated in a way that complies with the Interactive Gambling Act.
For Australian bettors, the practical lesson is straightforward: live sports betting remains tightly restricted, and even products offered by major licensed brands can face regulatory findings and later legal challenges.