The Gambling Harm Australia Can’t Ignore: $160K Lost at The Star

A Sydney man has come forward with an account of losing more than $160,000 across two major gambling operators. He is calling for stronger protections for people at risk. His story raises uncomfortable questions about whether operators, regulators, and financial institutions are doing enough before the damage is done. The debate around gambling harm in Australia has rarely felt more concrete.

Alerts Ignored, Membership Upgraded

Between October 2024 and September 2025, the man, who asked to remain anonymous, lost nearly $37,500 on poker machines at The Star Sydney. In September 2025 alone, his losses on the machines reached $21,334.97. Over that period, The Star recorded 11 alerts on his account between July and September. Despite those flags, he was not excluded or offered any limits. His membership was upgraded instead, giving him access to complimentary drinks and higher jackpot payouts.

He was only removed from the venue after he lodged a formal complaint himself. No one approached him on the floor. No one contacted him about the alerts. The intervention came only after he asked for it.

The man also gambled with The Lottery Corporation over the same period. His total losses across both operators exceeded $160,000. He reported both to Liquor and Gaming NSW (LGNSW), the state’s gambling regulator. LGNSW investigated and found no breaches of the relevant legislation by either operator.

A Regulator That Found No Fault

The outcome of the LGNSW investigation is one of the harder elements of this story to reconcile. Eleven internal alerts. A membership upgrade mid-flagging period. Losses approaching $40,000 in eleven months at a single venue. And yet the regulatory finding was that nothing went wrong under the law as it stands.

The Lottery Corporation declined to discuss the individual’s case. A spokesperson said lotteries represent a low-frequency form of gambling generally linked to a very low incidence of harm, while adding that the company remains committed to minimising that risk. The response was measured, but it did little to address the specifics of what happened.

The Star Sydney has faced significant regulatory scrutiny in recent months. The casino was separately fined $7.2 million earlier this year for a series of compliance failures covering gambling practices and financial crime controls. That matter is distinct from this one, but it contributes to a broader picture of an operator under ongoing pressure to meet its obligations.

Banks, Credit Cards, and a $164,000 Debt

The financial side of this case extends well beyond the casino floor. The man believes a significant portion of his losses was funded through credit cards he says he should never have been approved for. With the support of a financial counsellor, he is now disputing approximately $164,000 in debt across four National Australia Bank credit cards through the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.

His argument is not that the banks caused his gambling problem. He contends that credit approved during a period of escalating gambling spend should have triggered scrutiny rather than sign-off. It is a gap worth examining: financial institutions hold transaction data that can signal vulnerability, and this case asks whether they bear any duty to act on it.

The question connects directly to the wider conversation around gambling harm Australia has been having for several years. From advertising restrictions to affordability checks, the pressure to build more protection into the system has been building across multiple fronts. Mandatory pre-commitment tools on poker machines are one piece of that push, and cases like this one add weight to the argument that more is needed.

“More Needs to Be Done”

The man does not absolve himself of responsibility. He acknowledges that he made the decisions to gamble and to use credit to fund those decisions. But he argues that acknowledgement does not remove the duty of care from the institutions around him. Operators had the data. Banks had the transactions. Regulators had the framework. And still, nothing stopped.

His call is simple: more needs to be done to protect people who are visibly in trouble. Not after a complaint. Not after the money is gone. Earlier, and with more urgency than the current system requires. Whether policymakers respond to cases like his is another matter, but the gaps he describes are real and they are not unique to him.