Bot betting challenge fails as regulator upholds account closure

A Northern Territory wagering customer has failed in his bid to overturn a bookmaker’s decision to close his account after regulators found evidence that an automated betting system, or bot, had been used to access the account and place wagers.

In a decision released by the Northern Territory Wagering Commission, the regulator found that the customer, identified only as Mr R, had used an automated system in breach of the terms and conditions of Mintsports Pty Ltd, which operates the MintBet wagering platform.

The dispute stemmed from Mintsports’ decision in March 2025 to close the customer’s account after detecting activity it considered consistent with automated betting.

The customer denied using any robotic or automated software and argued he had been wrongly deprived of funds held in his account.

According to submissions from Mintsports, analysis of betting logs showed wagering activity that differed markedly from normal customer behaviour.

The bookmaker argued that human users must browse markets before placing bets, creating identifiable session activity, whereas automated systems can place wagers without the browsing patterns normally associated with manual betting.

A Suspicious Activity Report, prepared by its technology provider, examined account activity between September 2024 and March 2025. The report concluded the account presented an exceptionally high-risk profile and that the combination of betting behaviour and IP data provided “a high degree of confidence” that it was controlled by an automated bot.

Mintsports further submitted that the customer had previously indicated he was active in online wagering communities and promoted automated betting software.

After reviewing the evidence, the Commission found on the balance of probabilities that an automated system had been used to access the account and/or place wagers. It ruled that Mintsports was entitled to close the wagering account as a result.

While the customer achieved a partial victory on a separate issue relating to forfeited winnings of $2368.55, the key element of his complaint was unsuccessful.