In Canberra, Australia’s federal capital, the federal government officially rejected the proposal to allow streaming and commercial TV viewers the ability to block gambling advertisements as of September 2025. This decision follows the 2024 trial by SBS and its upcoming 2026 permanent enforcement of a gambling ad opt-out feature on its streaming platform, which demonstrated a 45% reduction in viewer complaints related to gambling ads. Despite these concrete results and increased public concern, the government declined to expand opt-out rights across commercial broadcasts.
George Savvides, former SBS chair and a vocal supporter of gambling ad opt-out policies, criticized the rejection, stating, "The denial of viewer autonomy in controlling exposure to gambling advertisements is a setback for public health and media responsibility. Viewers deserve protection from addictive and harmful content, and broadcasters must act accordingly." He emphasized the failure of authorities to align broader commercial channels with SBS’s example, highlighting the societal risks posed by unchecked gambling promotion.
The decision is framed within the context of Australian broadcasting and gambling advertising regulations, including the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice and wagering advertising guidelines under the Interactive Gambling Act. While SBS’s opt-out feature is an industry-led initiative, expanding this approach nationally requires explicit regulatory approval or legislative action from bodies such as the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) and endorsement from federal policymakers. The government’s cautious position attempts to balance advertising freedoms with emerging public health priorities.
The implications of this rejection include continued dependence on gambling advertising revenues by broadcasters, which represent a substantial portion of sponsorship income, especially in sporting events. Maintaining the status quo preserves these revenue streams but sustains public criticism and potential social harm related to problem gambling. This policy impasse may delay consumer rights innovation in media consumption and strain relationships among regulators, broadcasters, and advocacy groups.
