In a striking development from Australia’s gambling industry, a Melbourne man has come forward with allegations that he was offered $25,000 by a prominent betting company in exchange for withdrawing a formal complaint to a gambling regulator — and agreeing to accept liability for any negative media fallout. The revelation has triggered fresh concerns about transparency and ethics in the online betting sector.
Gordon Burns, a 23-year-old customer of BetNation and BetDeluxe — both now owned by the Amused Group — claims he raised red flags about his gambling behavior in 2022 after depositing tens of thousands of dollars. Despite showing classic signs of gambling harm, including high-volume deposits and erratic betting behavior, Burns says the companies failed to intervene or investigate the source of his funds, as required by responsible gambling guidelines.
By March 2024, frustrated by the lack of action, Burns filed a formal complaint with the Northern Territory Racing and Wagering Commission (NTRWC), the regulatory body overseeing licensed gambling operators. It was then, he alleges, that Amused Group offered him a private settlement worth $25,000 — but with significant strings attached.
According to Burns, the offer required him to withdraw his complaint, sign a confidentiality agreement, and indemnify the company against any damage from “adverse media coverage.” In short: take the money and stay silent.
“I felt like they were trying to buy me off,” Burns told reporters. “But this isn’t just about me — it’s about holding these companies accountable when they ignore gambling harm.”
Burns rejected the offer, stating that his goal is systemic change, not a personal payout. His stance has drawn praise from gambling reform advocates and raised serious ethical questions about the use of non-disclosure agreements to suppress regulatory complaints.
Industry experts warn that such settlement offers, if confirmed, could erode public trust in licensed betting operators and obstruct critical oversight. “If companies are using hush money to avoid regulatory scrutiny, it undermines the entire system of consumer protection,” said one gambling policy researcher.
Amused Group, in response to media inquiries, said it treats all complaints with the “utmost seriousness” and is committed to upholding the principles of responsible gambling. The company did not confirm nor deny offering the settlement, citing confidentiality.
A spokesperson for the NTRWC emphasized that private agreements do not prevent the commission from pursuing investigations or issuing disciplinary action. “The Commission may act on any matter that raises concerns of compliance or consumer harm, regardless of any private resolutions between parties,” the statement read.
The case has renewed calls for greater transparency in the gambling industry and stricter rules around operator accountability. Advocacy groups are now urging regulators to prohibit the use of settlement agreements that seek to silence complaints or shift liability to consumers.
As gambling continues to surge in Australia and around the world, this case serves as a stark reminder that behind the flashy ads and big payouts lies a vulnerable population — and a system in need of more than quiet deals.
