Online gambling platforms Hollywoodbets and Betway have indicated that they will refuse to comply with a directive from the National Gambling Board that bookmakers must stop offering casino games.
This comes after the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruled in favour of the Gauteng Gambling Board in a matter brought against Portapa, which trades as Supabets.
The court declared that it was unlawful in terms of the Gauteng Gambling Act for bookmakers to offer fixed-odds bets on the outcome of a casino game, such as roulette.
Sports betting platforms in South Africa have been using their provincial gambling licences to offer online casino games like slots, roulette, and blackjack.
This was despite the National Gambling Board (NGB) repeatedly warning that the only legal form of online gambling in South Africa was betting on events like sports matches and horse racing.
Following the 21 October 2025 ruling, the National Gambling Board published a statement saying that the judgment applied to the whole of South Africa.
“While the SCA’s judgment was premised on the interpretation of the Gauteng Gambling Act, its implications extend to all bookmakers across the country,” the National Gambling Board said.
“Therefore, the NGB calls on all bookmakers who engage in this practice of offering casino-style games as their source of contingency betting to refrain from such practices and comply with the applicable laws.”
The board’s acting CEO, Lungile Dukwana, said the NGB called on all provincial licensing authorities to monitor their respective licensees’ compliance with the applicable law and licence conditions.
“Provincial authorities must also ensure that swift and decisive action is taken in accordance with the applicable laws of the country in cases of non-compliance,” said Dukwana.
When MyBroadband asked Hollywoodbets and Betway whether they would withdraw their online casino games, they said the National Gambling Board’s interpretation of the ruling was wrong.
Their defiance is reminiscent of a scene from The Wolf of Wall Street that has become an Internet meme where Jordan Belfort, the titular Wolf, delivers a rousing speech to his followers.
Leading up to the speech, the U.S. financial regulator was threatening action against Belfort, portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio, for breaking the law.
The regulator offered him a deal to avoid prosecution, which included resigning from his firm and never transacting in financial securities again.
However, Belfort boldly proclaims, “I’m not leaving!” to uproarious applause from his employees. He enjoys the high life for a while, but is eventually arrested.
Hollywoodbets and Betway contend that the National Gambling Board has got it wrong by universalising a ruling specific to the Gauteng Gambling Act to the whole country.
“It is important to clarify that the ruling was specific to a case involving Supabets’ retail operations in Gauteng and is therefore limited in its scope and application,” a Hollywoodbets spokesperson said.
“The decision does not extend to our operations, nor to other provinces where we are duly licensed.”
Hollywoodbets said its products, including slots, roulette and other fixed-odds offerings, are fully approved by the respective provincial gambling boards and regulators.
“We operate within the framework of our valid licences and remain fully compliant with all relevant laws and regulations,” it stated.
“We will continue to engage with the applicable regulators and industry stakeholders to ensure continued clarity and alignment on this matter.”
Betway provided a similar statement through its spokesperson, saying the Supreme Court ruling was a narrow interpretation of the Gauteng Gambling Act and did not amount to a ban on online betting.
Hollywoodbets pointed to an article written by the director of Lurie Inc. Attorneys, Wayne Lurie, who is also the CEO of the South African Responsible Online Gambling Association.
Lurie Inc. claims to be the oldest niche gambling law firm in South Africa. Lurie has over two decades of experience in the gambling sector in South Africa and abroad.
“The NGB’s claim that the SCA ruling applies to all provinces and bans online gambling ignores both constitutional structure and statutory text,” Lurie stated.
“The SCA interpreted one provincial law; it did not read down the National Act or the laws of other provinces. Nor did it find that accepting bets through an online platform is itself unlawful.”
Lurie said that by extrapolating the decision into a nationwide ban, the NGB risks undermining regulatory certainty, deterring investment and creating confusion among consumers.
He argued that the constitutional design around gambling in South Africa deliberately left it up to provinces to determine what they would permit.
“Each province determines which types of events a bookmaker may offer. Gauteng has chosen to confine bookmakers to sporting events,” he said.
“The Western Cape, Mpumalanga and others have opted for a more flexible approach and language that accommodates the modern, converged marketplace.”
However, there is a flaw Lurie’s argument in favour of provincial autonomy. As soon as the Internet is involved, provincial borders are meaningless.
By allowing bookmakers to offer casino games online, provincial authorities like the Western Cape and Mpumalanga have effectively decided on behalf of all provinces, robbing them of their autonomy.
All the provincial licences determine is which provincial authority collects the billions of rands of tax revenue these gambling operators generate.
Lurie also said the NGB’s decree threatens to regress progress made in recent years, where consumers who were using illegal overseas gambling sites had returned to legal, licensed online betting platforms.
“The role of a national board should be to coordinate and educate, not to rewrite provincial statutes through press releases,” stated Lurie.
However, Lurie did have a word of caution for online gambling platform operators in South Africa, saying the judgment exposed how blurred some marketing practices had become.
“A few operators have styled themselves as ‘online casinos’ while holding only bookmaker licences. That language invites exactly the kind of conflation the SCA has now cautioned against,” he said.
“Operators should review their branding, website content and product descriptions to ensure they align with the specific contingencies authorised under their provincial licences.”
Consistency between provincial boards on terminology would also help prevent further disputes, stated Lurie.
“A harmonised understanding of what constitutes a sporting event, a virtual event or an electronic contingency would close much of the grey space that opportunists exploit,” he said.
“On the topic of opportunists, illegal offshore online casinos without any local oversight or tax liabilities continue to target vulnerable South Africans without any meaningful challenge from the NGB.”
According to Lurie, this litigation dates back to 2014, when casinos sought to defend their turf against bookmakers entering digital spaces.
“Eleven years later, many casino groups themselves hold bookmaker licences and operate online betting platforms. The marketplace has converged, yet the legal architecture has not,” he said.
Lurie did not name them, but one prominent example is Sunbet, operated by Sun International, which offers various table games and poker through its online platform.
“The real policy task now is to modernise the framework so that technology, consumer protection and taxation evolve together rather than through piecemeal litigation,” Lurie argued.
“South Africa’s provinces continue to license and regulate online betting lawfully and responsibly, and the provincial executives have outdone themselves in creating viable regimes from archaic legislation.”
Lurie said the industry’s future depends not on panic but on careful compliance, accurate communication and an informed public debate grounded in constitutional reality.
“The Portapa judgment is a reminder of the precision with which gambling statutes operate, not a signal of prohibition,” he said.
While some have called for a total ban following a rise in addiction statistics and reports of people’s entire welfare grants being wagered on betting platforms, others have taken aim at advertising.
Most recently, Pick n Pay CEO Sean Summers said South African regulators should crack down on online gambling advertising.
Citing data from banks, Summers said roughly 20% of South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) grants go straight into online gambling.
“It’s down at the lower end of the market where people are battling to feed their families, never mind anything else. It’s just bizarre, and the quantum is absolutely massive.”
Summers said around R70 billion was being taken out of the economy by the gambling industry every year, which is almost as much as people spend on groceries at Pick n Pay.
“I think that there are two elements here. It should be far harder taxed than it’s currently being taxed, and there needs to be some sort of control and regulation put in place,” he said.
Summers believes it should work similarly to cigarette advertising and noted that in places like the United Kingdom, betting companies aren’t allowed to advertise on football jerseys.
Meanwhile, in South Africa, prominent sports teams like the Sharks provincial rugby team have companies like Hollywoodbets as their primary sponsor.
“Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy have made a move to totally ban any marketing or advertising of online gambling. It’s a complete scourge,” added Summers.
The Department of Trade, Industry, and Competition (DTIC) is aware of the situation and recently said that excessive gambling advertising is partly to blame for the surge in popularity of online gambling.
