ACMA issues its first influencer enforcement action over Jamie Mullarkey gambling promotion

Australia's online gambling regulator has formally warned mixed martial arts fighter Jamie Mullarkey over sponsored Instagram promotion for an illegal offshore gambling service. ACMA says its investigation found posts, sponsorship references, promotional hashtags and a direct link to the service on Mullarkey's profile during 2025.

The action is notable for a precise reason: ACMA calls it the first enforcement action it has taken against an influencer for breaching online gambling rules. It is not the first time the regulator has warned influencers as a group. In June 2025, ACMA publicly told creators that paid promotion, links and gambling demonstrations could break the law.

ACMA says Mullarkey promptly ended the sponsorship arrangement, cooperated with the investigation and removed the material. The regulator also records that he accepted responsibility and expressed remorse. Those circumstances informed its decision to issue a formal warning rather than pursue a civil penalty in this case.

A formal warning is still an enforcement outcome. It records the regulator's finding that the promotion breached Australia's online gambling laws. The distinction matters in both directions: describing the case as no action would be wrong, but reporting a multimillion-dollar fine would be equally wrong because no financial penalty was imposed.

Australian rules prohibit promoting illegal online gambling services through social posts, streams, giveaways and other endorsements. ACMA draws a further line around facilitating access. Providing hyperlinks or directing people to an illegal service may expose an individual to a much higher civil penalty than promotion alone.

The regulator currently puts the maximum at AUD 59,400 for an individual who promotes or publicises an illegal service and AUD 2.475 million where the conduct facilitates access. Those are maximum statutory figures, not a price list or the result in Mullarkey's matter. His case ended with the warning described by ACMA.

ACMA does not publish the number of followers who saw the sponsored posts, clicked through or gambled. It also does not identify the offshore service on the public enforcement page. Without those details, there is no reliable basis to estimate revenue, player losses or the commercial value of the sponsorship.

The finding is narrower: promotional content and a link appeared in connection with a paid arrangement, and the service was illegal for the Australian market. The regulator does not allege that Mullarkey owned the operator, controlled the games or handled player money. Those would be materially different claims.

ACMA addressed the warning to more than athletes. Its statement says social personalities and their agents should understand the risk. A sponsorship contract does not decide whether the promoted service is lawful in Australia, so creators and representatives need to check the operator and the exact activity before publishing a link.

The next case may not end the same way. ACMA says it can use substantial civil penalties when influencers promote or facilitate access to illegal gambling. Mullarkey's cooperation and quick removal are part of the public reason for this outcome; they are not a guarantee that another creator will receive only a warning.

ACMA’s wording is specific: this was the regulator’s first enforcement action against an influencer for breaching online gambling rules. That does not prove no other Australian authority has ever acted on influencer conduct. The narrower wording is both stronger and safer because it can be traced directly to the agency that issued the warning.