Advertising

Whether you’re watching TV, attending a footy game, or eating a meal at your local pub, gambling is hard to escape. Although the rise of gambling is not unique to Australia, it has become normalised as a part of Australian culture. While for some, gambling might be a source of entertainment, for others, it can lead to significant harms.

Gambling and mental illness

• In many cases, harms associated with gambling lead to poor mental health.
• But people experiencing mental illness are also at greater risk of experiencing gambling problems.
• A person might not have a diagnosable gambling disorder, however they still may face problems in their life as a result of gambling.

Gambling and suicide

• Research from different countries has shown that among people receiving treatment for problem gambling, between 22% and 81% have thought about suicide, and 7% to 30% have made an attempt.
• Some 44% of Australian veterans experiencing gambling problems have thought about suicide, while almost 20% have made a suicide plan or attempt.

• Gambling-related suicides were more likely to affect males (83%) compared to total suicide deaths in Victoria over the same period (75%).
• This is because, unlike for drugs and alcohol, at present there’s no systematic way gambling is captured as a contributing factor in suicide deaths.

Gambling is inherently risky

• Evidence shows pokies alone are responsible for more than half of all gambling problems in Australia.
• Casino table games are equally risky, but in the general population they contribute much less to problem gambling because fewer people play them.

What can we do?

• She suggested health professionals could make it part of their routine practice to ask simple questions like “in the past 12 months, have you ever felt that you had a problem with gambling?”.
• Or, “has anyone commented that you might have a problem with gambling?”.

• In June 2023, a cross-party committee presented a report with 31 recommendations to reduce harms from online gambling in Australia.
• Read more:
  Celebrities, influencers, loopholes: online gambling advertising faces an uncertain future in Australia

Advice for people who gamble

• For people who do choose to gamble, it’s important to be aware of the risks.
• If you choose to gamble, set limits on the amount of money you’re willing to loose, or the amount of time you will spend gambling.

gamble no more than 2% of your take-home pay
gamble no more than once a week
take part in no more than two different types of gambling.
If you notice you’re thinking about gambling more and more, or that it’s causing problems in any part of your life, seeking help early is key. Speak to your GP about how you can get some extra support, or visit Gambling Help Online. If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.
Anastasia Hronis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Apple?s important mandatory requirements affecting iOS apps are about to kick in, and Google’s new requirements for publishers and advertisers have just gone into effect. Accurately implementing these requirements calls for close cooperation between the legal, privacy, and ad ops teams. Apple’s Privacy Manifests At WWDC 2023, Apple announced privacy manifests, signatures for SDKs, and [?]

• The order must be approved by the court before it can go into effect.
• “As the Commission’s complaint lays out, Cerebral violated its customers’ privacy by revealing their most sensitive mental health conditions across the Internet and in the mail,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan.
• “To address this betrayal, the Commission is ordering a first-of-its-kind prohibition that bans Cerebral from using any health information for most advertising purposes."
• Cerebral provides online mental health and related services on a negative option basis, which means consumers are automatically charged unless they cancel those services.

• Despite promising that consumers could “cancel anytime,” Cerebral required its clients to navigate a complex, multi-step, and often multi-day process to cancel.
• The complaint alleges that the company continued to charge consumers while it slow-walked consumers’ cancellation requests, which cost consumers millions in additional charges.
• The proposed order, which must be approved by a federal court before it can go into effect, only applies to Cerebral.

• The Commission voted 3-0 to refer the complaint against Cerebral and Robertson and a stipulated final order with Cerebral to the Department of Justice for filing.
• The DOJ filed the complaint and stipulated order in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.