In a recent turn of events within the gambling industry, Victoria-licensed MintBet has come under scrutiny for failing to abide by responsible gambling regulations. A customer engaged in continuous online gambling activities through MintBet, clocking a shocking 35 hours of gameplay over a relatively short span of approximately 50 hours. During this marathon of gambling, the customer executed a concerning 327 bets, resulting in substantial losses totaling $31,149.
The Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission (VGCCC) took a decisive stance on the matter, highlighting that MintBet fell short of its obligations to intervene when the customer displayed clear signs of distress—a requirement for all gambling operators licensed in Victoria. A pivotal facet of the state’s Responsible Gambling Code of Conduct stipulates that licensees must act accordingly when such problematic behaviors are observed.
MintBet’s decisive action to close the account emerged only after the player personally signaled distress from gambling harm. Although MintBet had certain protective systems designed to aid vulnerable individuals in maintaining control of their gambling habits, these were deemed insufficient by VGCCC, thus constituting another breach of the conduct code.
In light of these infringements, the VGCCC mandated that MintBet not only faces fines but also must submit a report outlining proposed enhancements to their currently inadequate systems and processes. The regulatory body intends to review MintBet’s proposed measures to ensure they meet the required standards, and any further necessary actions will be contemplated based on this evaluation.
Scott May, Deputy CEO of the VGCCC, made it abundantly clear that gambling providers in Victoria must strictly adhere to their responsible gambling codes, emphasizing the codes’ integral role in safeguarding individuals against the perils of gambling harm. He stated unequivocally that even in the realm of online gambling, providers are duty-bound to consistently monitor and preemptively act if customers exhibit warning signs of distress, such as gambling for prolonged durations.
Scott May also stressed the stern ramifications for any provider who disregards their responsible gambling obligations, declaring that non-compliance is inexcusable and won’t be tolerated by the Commission.
This announcement came in the wake of a landmark VGCCC decision concerning the future of Crown Resorts in Victoria, wherein the casino juggernaut was deemed suitable to retain its operating license, allowing it to maintain operations at its Melbourne venue. The preservation of Crown Melbourne’s license was described by VGCCC as being in the “public interest,” considering the venue’s status as the state’s most significant single-site employer.
The decision to permit Crown to hold onto its license followed a tumultuous period marked by sweeping reforms within the organization in response to incisive criticism from the Royal Commission’s investigation into casino licenses. Crown was excoriated for what the Commission classified as illicit, dishonest, unethical, and exploitative conduct. However, the casino operator has since reported expending upwards of AU$200.0 million on transforming its operations to conform with regulatory expectations. This massive overhaul, it seems, has been sufficient to assuage the VGCCC, for the time being, allowing Crown to sustain its license in Victoria.
