Legislation

Australia – LottoLand wins court case against Australian Communications and Media Authority

By Phil - 16 August 2019

Lottoland has won its legal battle against the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

The online lottery group took action against the ACMA in June after the regulator claimed that Lottoland was in breach of Australia’s Interactive Gambling Act (IGA) with its jackpot betting products.

The product in question takes numbers from financial markets at certain times of the day, and arranges them into a winning number for a lottery draw.

LottoLand CEO Luke Brill said: “The Supreme Court of NSW has today confirmed that Lottoland Australia’s Jackpot Betting products are fully compliant with Australian law. Lottoland Australia has always maintained that ACMA’s view of our Jackpot Betting products is wrong, unfair, and uncompetitive and I am pleased to say that we have been vindicated. With this matter now settled, Lottoland Australia can finally get on with what it does best – providing new and exciting products that Australian punters love.”

In the case, Lottoland claimed that jackpot betting wasn’t ‘betting on the result of a game’ and therefore shouldn’t be considered illegal under the Interactive Gambling Act (2001).

The judge ruled: “The term bet, can in some circumstances involve the formation of an opinion, on the part of the person betting. However, in the case of the impugned products, the process of selection of the customer number appears somewhat entirely mechanical, i.e. it is pure guesswork. It is difficult to see how any skill could be involved in selecting the numbers.

“There is little to no rational basis, it seems, upon which the customer numbers are selected. Indeed customers may choose to relinquish all control and have their numbers automatically chosen for them. The process is devoid of the notion of an expression of opinion. There is no obvious judgement or skill being employed and it is difficult to say the selection could be based on some belief.”

“A game must be more than the simple process by which a person parts with his/her money with a chance of financial return,” the judge continued. “There must be a level of interaction in the sense that a participant’s actions to some extent affect the outcome of the activity. Here there is no participation in the sense that the ongoing actions of the participant can influence the outcome.”