Australian Fast Code betting customers automatically included in class action against Entain

Australian customers who lost money through Entain’s Fast Code betting service have been automatically included in a class action that says the product breached local gambling law. For PSPs and operators, the practical issue is not the headline claim itself so much as the mechanics: if a court accepts that an in-play workaround was unlawful, the downstream questions quickly become refunds, clawbacks, and who has to notify whom.

1. The Supreme Court of Victoria has ordered Entain, which operates the Neds and Ladbrokes brands in Australia, to notify all affected customers about the proceedings and explain their rights in the class action.
2. Entain disputes the allegation that Fast Code was unlawful. The company says its service complied with Australian gambling laws and, after system changes, Fast Codes were generated before sporting events began and were generic rather than tied to individual customers’ selections.
3. The case sits inside Australia’s in-play betting rules under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (IGA). In-play betting is generally prohibited online in Australia once a sporting event has started, with a narrow exception for wagers placed wholly by telephone.
4. Fast Code used a code-based flow: customers selected an in-play wager online, received an alphanumeric code, and then communicated that code through an automated telephone service to place the bet. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) said in December 2023 that several operators had breached the IGA because key information, including bet selection, bet type, stake, and confirmation of the wager, needed to be communicated entirely through a telephone call.
5. The class action covers customers who used Entain’s Fast Code service between March 4, 2019, and March 4, 2025, and allegedly suffered losses from those wagers. Entain has also filed a counterclaim arguing that if losing bets must be refunded, it should be entitled to recover winnings previously paid to customers who used the system.

Entain’s Fast Code was not the first version of this kind of workaround; the text notes that similar systems had previously been used by other operators, including William Hill’s Click to Call product. ACMA ultimately did not pursue enforcement action after operators completed system changes, but the class action keeps the legal question alive for a six-year customer set, which is exactly the kind of retroactive exposure high-risk payment and gambling businesses keep running into when a product design collides with a local rulebook.