Australian customers who lost money on Entain’s Fast Code betting service have been automatically included in a class action in the Supreme Court of Victoria, and have until 8 October 2026 to opt out if they do not want to be part of it.
The proceeding, Jeremy Bergman v Entain Group Pty Limited (S ECI 2025 01120), covers anyone who placed a bet through Fast Code between 4 March 2019 and 4 March 2025 and suffered a loss as a result. Entain Group Pty Limited runs Ladbrokes and Neds in Australia. Maurice Blackburn acts for the plaintiff.
Group members do not have to sign up. Victorian group proceedings run on an opt-out model, so affected customers are in by default, and the court has ordered that they be told about the case and their rights. Those notices are being sent between 18 August and 4 September 2026. Anyone who wants to pursue their own claim separately, or stay out altogether, must file an opt-out notice by 4:00pm AEDT on 8 October 2026.
How Fast Code worked
Fast Code let a customer select an in-play wager on the Ladbrokes or Neds app or website and receive an alphanumeric code. The customer then called an automated telephone service and entered the code to complete the bet. The design was not unique to Entain. William Hill ran a comparable product in Australia called Click to Call, and several operators used the same pattern.
The code existed to fit an exception in the law. The Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (Cth), the IGA, prohibits online in-play betting once a sporting event is under way, but allows in-play wagers placed wholly by telephone. Code-based services put the selection online and the confirmation on a phone line.
The claim under the Interactive Gambling Act
The plaintiff alleges that Fast Code fell outside the telephone exception because the material details of the bet were communicated by means other than the telephone. On that reading, the bets were placed in breach of the IGA and the resulting contracts were illegal, which the claim says entitles customers to a refund of their losses.
The case also pleads misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law and a breach of Entain’s own terms of service. Entain denies the allegations and says the service complied with the law.
Parliament had already tried to close the gap. Legislative changes in 2016 and 2017 were intended to end code-based in-play betting by requiring the telephone route to be voice-only. The class action asks whether Fast Code stayed within the law after that point, and whether customers who lost money on it can recover.
The regulator stopped short
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) examined the products and concluded in December 2023 that several operators had breached the IGA through code-based in-play services. ACMA did not take enforcement action, because the operators changed their systems after being contacted.
That outcome left the question of customer compensation untouched. A regulator finding a breach does not refund a losing bet, and the class action is the route being used to test whether those losses are recoverable through the courts. Entain is not the only operator facing it. A separate group proceeding over the same type of service is running against Sportsbet in the same court, where the operator has also filed a counterclaim.
Entain’s counterclaim
Entain has filed a counterclaim seeking recovery of winnings it paid out, on the basis that if losing bets must be refunded because the contracts were illegal, winning bets on the same contracts should be treated the same way. The effect would be to net the class down, offsetting refunded losses against paid winnings rather than paying gross losses back.
An amended claim was filed on 1 December 2025 and both sides have since amended their pleadings. Justice Nichols ruled on the group costs order on 20 July 2026, setting how the plaintiff’s lawyers are paid from any recovery.
What happens next
The opt-out window closes on 8 October 2026, after which the size of the class is fixed and the case proceeds to the merits. A judgment on the telephone exception would set how far an operator can take a hybrid online and phone product before it stops counting as a telephone bet, a question that reaches every wagering licensee that ran one.
The timing adds to an already busy Australian compliance year. Federal politicians have agreed 15 amendments to the country’s gambling advertising laws, including an ACMA-run opt-out register, and the Prime Minister has added inducement curbs to the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2026. Entain, meanwhile, reported 7% online NGR growth at constant currency in H1 while beginning a phased exit from central and eastern Europe.
Australian customers who used Fast Code in the six years to March 2025 do not need to take any action to remain in the case. The decision they face by 8 October is whether to leave it.
Source: Supreme Court of Victoria
