Inclave casinos list for Australians in 2026 — what an Inclave login really connects, and what the ACMA has done about the sites behind it

An Inclave casinos list for Australia is, on its face, a roster of offshore sites that share a single sign-in. Underneath that roster sits a more uncomfortable shape: every site on it has offered online casino games to people physically in Australia, and the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 makes that a prohibited service regardless of how the sign-in is wired. Two facts about that shape carry the whole page. One, an Inclave login is convenience software, not a licence — it does not convert a Curaçao-registered site into an Australian-licensed one. Two, the Australian Communications and Media Authority has spent the last several years issuing formal warnings to the operators behind most of the names any list contains, then directing local ISPs to block them, and a player who already has a balance when the block lands is the one holding the bag.

Current as of 20 October 2026, verified against the ACMA’s published register of formal warnings and its blocking notices.

The eleven brands on this list, and the warning each one carries

The set below is not a ranking. The order is the order the ACMA’s own register hands them, with the earliest brand-level actions at the top. Each row carries the operator the ACMA named, the date the warning was published, and whether the ACMA’s register links to this guide’s subject area — the Inclave login system, or the broader offline-banking cluster that surrounds it.

Several patterns show up before any single row is read. Dama N.V. alone is named by the ACMA four times across this set, in three different years. Consolutetish S.R.L. is named twice for two brands in a single July 2025 round. The “—” entries are not absences of consequence: they are brands the ACMA has acted against, but for which this guide’s own research pool has no listing entry tying them to the Inclave login network or to the Australian offline-banking subject area. A “—” in that column is the research’s own negative finding, and a reader should treat it as such rather than as an endorsement.

The four columns answer four different questions. The brand column is the marketing name on the site and the lobby. The ACMA-action column is the formal-warning date, and it matters because a site the regulator has already warned is, by definition, a site that has already served an Australian and been told in writing to stop. The operator column is the registered company behind the brand — different from the brand name on most of the rows, and the entity the ACMA’s enforcement actually names. The subject-support column is the narrowest of the four: it shows whether this guide’s research could link the brand to the Inclave subject area specifically, or only to a wider cluster of references; where the column is empty, the link to Inclave specifically was not established.

RocketPlay — the same operator, the same warning, one brand apart

The ACMA published a formal warning to Pulsup Ltd over RocketPlay in March 2026. The same brand name had already been the subject of a May 2022 warning to Dama N.V., when Rocketplay was one of six casino brands bundled into a single enforcement action. Two warnings, four years apart, for the same Australian-facing offer, under two different corporate parents, is the ACMA’s own record of how the offshore market treats a regulator’s letter. Rocketplay returns in Gambling Insider’s listing coverage; that is what this guide has to attach to the brand on the Inclave subject. The warning is the regulator’s view, not the listing site’s, and a reader weighing Rocketplay on a list should weigh it as a brand the ACMA has had to name twice.

Level Up Casino — Dama N.V.’s 2022 cluster

Level Up was one of the six brands the ACMA named when it warned Dama N.V. in May 2022 — Bambet, Dazard, Level Up, Rocketplay, Wild Tornado and Cobra Casinos in a single action. Westpac’s own card-gambling-block guidance names Dama N.V. as one of the operators whose merchant-code pattern is the reason a bank-side block exists in the first place. Level Up is therefore a brand whose operator has been on the regulator’s list for four years and on the bank’s list for the same reason: an offer of prohibited interactive gambling services to people in Australia.

Woo Casino — the 2025 round opens

In March 2025 the ACMA formally warned Dama N.V. over Woo Casino, then warned it again in May 2025 over Spirit Casino. Two letters, two months, two brand names, one operator — and that operator had already been warned in May 2022 over the six-brand cluster that included Rocketplay. The ACMA’s own publication sequence here is the cleanest illustration of what an offshore operator does with a regulator’s letter: it changes the brand name on the lobby and keeps offering the same product to the same audience. Woo Casino’s subject-support column is empty because no listing source in the research pool attaches the brand to the Inclave login system specifically. The ACMA record, by contrast, is public and detailed.

Spirit Casino — the May 2025 follow-on

Spirit Casino is the May 2025 half of Dama N.V.’s two-letter year. The same operator, the same product, a different brand name on the page. The research pool carries no listing entry for Spirit on the Inclave subject. The ACMA’s own warning is the only document on this row that names the brand in a regulator’s voice.

National Casino — Consolutetish S.R.L.’s first 2025 warning

National Casino is one of two brands the ACMA named when it warned Consolutetish S.R.L. in July 2025. Three regulators’ sites — acma.gov.au itself, austrac.gov.au and betstop.gov.au — each reference the operator in their own publications, which is the broadest cross-reference this list carries. A brand that appears across the regulator, the financial-intelligence agency and the national self-exclusion register in the same calendar year is being treated as an enforcement target at three different levels of the Australian system at once.

Bizzo Casino — the second warning, four years on

Consolutetish S.R.L. received its warning over Bizzo Casino in the same July 2025 round as National Casino. Bizzo’s row is the only one in the table that records a warning to a different operator for the same brand: TechSolutions (CY) Group Limited and TechSolutions Group N.V. had already been warned over Bizzo Casino in 2022. Two operators, one brand, two warnings. Gambling Insider references the brand in its listing coverage, which is what the subject-support column can attach. The two-operator history is the regulator’s record, not the listing’s.

Ignition Casino — the July 2025 Bamboo Media warning

Bamboo Media is the operator the ACMA named when it issued its July 2025 warning over Ignition Casino. Ignition’s subject-support column is empty; the regulator’s row is not. A brand without a listing trail in this research pool is not a brand the regulator has been silent about — it is a brand the research simply did not find a listing page for on this subject.

Instant Casino — EOD Code SRL, the early 2025 warning

EOD Code SRL was formally warned over Instant Casino in February 2025. EcoPayz and PayID each reference the operator in their respective guidance, which is the kind of cross-reference a payment-method column looks for when the brand sits outside the licensed-Australian perimeter. PayID’s own consumer guidance is blunt on this point: being asked to transfer money to a PayID on an illegal gambling site almost certainly means a scam site. Instant Casino is a brand the ACMA named before PayID’s guidance was published, but the substance of the warning — an illegal offer to Australians — is exactly the situation PayID’s warning describes.

Jackbit — the April 2026 Ryker B.V. warning

Ryker B.V. received a formal warning over Jackbit and CasinOK in April 2026. The subject-support column is empty. A reader who finds Jackbit on a list promoted as “new Inclave casino” is reading a marketing claim about recency, while the ACMA’s own record for 2026 already names the brand.

Casino Intense — Sterplay Holding Ltd, the April 2025 warning

Sterplay Holding Ltd received a formal warning over Casino Intense in April 2025. Three reference sites — austrac.gov.au, betstop.gov.au and Gambling Insider — attach to the operator. Sterplay’s listing coverage runs across the regulator, the financial-intelligence agency and the national self-exclusion register, alongside the listing press; Casino Intense is one of the better-attached rows in the table from a cross-reference point of view.

Sky Crown — Hollycorn N.V.’s recorded warning

Hollycorn N.V. received a formal warning over Sky Crown and Blue Leo. The ACMA published the warning in a PDF dated September 2022; the subject-support column is empty. Two brand names, one operator, one letter — and Hollycorn N.V. is the operator behind a brand the ACMA has had on file since before the most recent enforcement cycle began.

What the ACMA’s own blocking arithmetic looks like

The blocking rate is an estimate, not a simple sum. The calculation starts with the total number of sites the ACMA has directed Australian ISPs to block since the regime started: 1,751 illegal gambling and affiliate marketing websites blocked since the first blocking request in November 2019. The timeframe starts from that first request — November 2019 — and runs to the ACMA’s latest reported blocking round on 26 June 2026. This period of roughly six and a half years shows the regulatory pace against those 1,751 blocked domains. It suggests an average rate in the low-to-mid hundreds of domains a year, with significant year-to-year variation as enforcement has intensified. For a reader, the raw total of 1,751 is less revealing than the rate; the rate shows the speed of the regulator, which is what any new “Inclave casino” on a list must reckon with before it begins operations.

The condition that sits on the band is straightforward. The 1,751 figure counts both gambling sites and affiliate-marketing sites — pages that exist to send traffic to gambling sites rather than to take bets themselves. The exact gambling-only share is not stated in the regulator’s publication the research cites, so the rate this page states is the rate of the combined blocked set, not the rate of casino-only blocks. A reader who needs a tighter number needs the ACMA’s own filtered count, which the regulator does not publish in this format. The combined rate is still the right number to read against: affiliate-marketing sites are part of how an offshore casino reaches an Australian customer, and the regulator blocks them for the same reason it blocks the casino itself.

The June 2026 round added twelve names in one go — 7Signs, ChromaBet, Donbet, Duospin, Freshbet, Slots Gem, Jacks Club, Lucky Start, Pointsbetz, Spinrise, Vinyl Casino and Wildsino. Twelve is the most recent single-round size. The combined rate and the per-round size together are the shape of the regulator’s pace: a slow grind of cumulative totals, with occasional concentrated rounds. A list that updates weekly cannot keep up with that pace; an Inclave login that links three or four of these brands at once is a login that takes the player over a regulator’s decision they may not have known about.

How Inclave actually works, and what it does not change

Inclave is a third-party login service. A casino that has integrated Inclave offers its players a single sign-up — an email, a password, sometimes a biometric option — that the same player can reuse on the next Inclave-integrated casino they land on. What the login connects, on the technical side, is a credential: an email-and-password pair, sometimes with a passkey or face ID on top. What it does not connect is anything else. An Inclave login does not pool balances between sites. It does not carry a player’s wagering history from one casino to another. It does not transfer bonus credit, free-spin entitlements, deposit limits, time-out settings or any responsible-gaming state from one operator’s environment to the next.

That is the part of the marketing pitch the page needs to deflate, because the pitch tends to flatten three different things into one. The sign-up is shared. The wallet is not. The responsible-gaming state — self-exclusion, deposit ceilings, time-outs, reality checks — is per-operator, and an Inclave login that lets a player back into a casino they previously self-excluded from is, by construction, not a system that knows they previously self-excluded. A single sign-on across several sites is, for the player’s wallet and for the player’s protections, exactly what a separate account on each site would be, minus the friction. The login is convenience. Nothing else travels with it.

A second thing the marketing pitch sometimes implies is that an Inclave login is a kind of passport — that going through Inclave means the casino knows who the player is. That implication is half true. Inclave’s signup stores the player’s email and password and offers them back at the next site, which means the next site does not have to re-run an email-verification flow. What the next site still has to do, and still does, is run its own KYC: proof of identity, proof of address, source-of-funds checks at the thresholds the operator sets. The “one sign-up” promise is real at the form-filling level and silent at the KYC level. An Inclave login is not a KYC pass.

The third thing the pitch sometimes says is that an Inclave list is curated — that being on the list means someone has checked the casino. The list is, in practice, whatever the list-publisher has chosen to put on it. The ACMA’s enforcement record for this market is the closest thing to a curator the player has, and it operates by removing names, not by adding them.

Why none of this changes Australian law

The Interactive Gambling Act 2001, as amended in 2017, makes it an offence to provide online casino games, online pokies or in-play betting to a person in Australia. No state or territory licenses online casino games. Online wagering on races and sport, placed before the event, is licensable, and in practice it is licensed in the Northern Territory because the Territory’s wagering tax regime is the one the major operators choose; the Northern Territory Racing and Wagering Commission regulates fifty-two of Australia’s online bookmakers — Sportsbet, Bet365 and Ladbrokes among them — with no full-time staff and a once-a-month meeting in Darwin. Online casino is not in any of those licences.

The legal position an Australian resident sits in when they sign up to an Inclave-integrated casino is therefore straightforward. The casino is offering a prohibited interactive gambling service. The player is not the target of the IGA — the Act targets the provider, not the individual customer — but the player is also outside every protection the Australian system extends to a customer of a licensed wagering provider. No Australian consumer-law recourse if the operator refuses a withdrawal. No complaints body. No BetStop coverage, because BetStop — the National Self-Exclusion Register, live since August 2023 — binds only Australian-licensed online and phone wagering services, and an offshore casino is not connected to it. No dispute resolution through the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, because the casino is not an Australian financial-services provider.

The 2026 reform package is law with a future start date, not law in force. The Interactive Gambling Amendment (Gambling Reform) Bill 2026 passed Parliament on 19 August 2026; its advertising and inducement measures commence on 1 January 2027. A page written in the second half of 2026 is therefore writing about the current Act, not the amending Act, and a reader looking for the new rules in 2026 will not find them in force yet.

What the payment-method picture looks like, and where the bank sits

The payment-method picture is the part of the page that meets the player at the deposit screen, and it is where several enforcement lines meet at once.

Credit cards have been banned as a payment method for licensed online wagering since 11 June 2024, with penalties for operators of up to A$247,500 for taking one. The ban covers credit-related products and digital currency. The ban applies to licensed operators. An offshore casino is not subject to the ban, but the banks on the player’s side are. ANZ’s gambling transaction block, activated in the ANZ app, blocks gambling transactions made through a digital wallet such as Apple Pay on an eligible card, not just on the physical card; once turned on, the block requires a 48-hour waiting period to remove, and the bank warns that not all gambling transactions will be blocked and that some non-gambling transactions might be blocked in error. Westpac’s gambling block works at the card level: it refuses authorisation of transactions registered under the merchant category code “Betting/Casino Gambling” on eligible personal credit and debit cards. Commonwealth Bank’s gambling lock, applied via the CommBank app, automatically blocks most gambling transactions, with the same caveat — the bank cannot guarantee all gambling-related purchases will be stopped.

Apple Pay sits in a particular spot on this map. Apple does not charge fees to consumers for using Apple Pay in stores, online or in apps; any surcharge comes from the merchant’s own card-processing fees. Apple Pay’s transaction limits and PIN requirements are set by the card issuer or merchant, not by Apple itself. By the end of 2025, Apple Pay, Google Pay and Samsung Pay transactions collectively accounted for around 45% of all card payments in Australia by number. The credit-card ban for licensed wagering constrains gambling use of linked digital wallets because the wallet is just a front end for the card underneath it; an ANZ gambling block stops the wallet transaction at the card-issuer end.

PayID and Osko are the legitimate Australian instant-transfer rails. With Osko, a bank transfer between participating Australian banks arrives in under a minute, 24/7 including weekends, whether it is addressed to a BSB and account number or to a PayID. Paying to a PayID shows the name of the account holder before the transfer is sent; AP+ warns that being asked to transfer money to a PayID on an illegal gambling site almost certainly means a scam site. PayID-based instant transfers are available at over 100 Australian financial institutions; more than 25 million PayID identifiers had been registered on Australia’s New Payments Platform as of April 2025. The New Payments Platform became accessible to the public on 13 February 2018 and is owned by New Payments Platform Australia Ltd, a non-profit whose thirteen shareholders include the Reserve Bank of Australia and the major banks; participants must keep the platform’s monthly outages to no more than two minutes. In 2021 the ACCC authorised merging NPP Australia with BPAY and eftpos into a single company, Australian Payments Plus.

BPAY is the bill-payment rail. The payer enters the Biller Code and the Customer Reference Number printed on the bill. BPAY has operated in Australia since 1997 — launched on 18 November that year — is available in the online banking of over 140 banks and financial institutions, and is offered by over 95,000 businesses. It is run by Australian Payments Plus and is owned equally, via parent company Cardlink Services Limited, by Australia’s four major banks.

American Express is the odd one out. Unlike Visa or Mastercard’s four-party network, Amex traditionally issues cards and processes transactions itself as a three-party scheme; the company was established in 1850 as a freight-forwarding company and later became a card issuer, launching its first charge card on 1 October 1958. The Reserve Bank of Australia’s July 2025 review proposes removing surcharges only on eftpos, Mastercard and Visa card transactions, explicitly leaving American Express outside the scope of the proposed surcharge ban. The upshot for an Australian considering deposit routes is that Amex is a network most Australian merchants either decline or surcharge, which limits its usefulness for gambling deposits on either side of the legal line.

AUSTRAC’s threshold-transaction-report rule — which requires reporting of transfers of A$10,000 or more — applies only to physical cash. Ordinary electronic bank transfers are not subject to that per-transaction reporting requirement, regardless of the amount sent. The rule does not, by itself, stop a player sending A$10,000 to an offshore casino in a single PayID transfer, and the player should not assume it does.

The shape of the ACMA’s enforcement cycle

The ACMA’s enforcement cycle has three visible parts: formal warning, blocking direction and market exit. A formal warning is published on acma.gov.au and names the operator and the brand. A blocking direction asks Australian ISPs to make the site’s domain unreachable from inside Australia — the cumulative count is 1,751 domains blocked since November 2019. Market exit is what happens when an operator withdraws from the Australian market entirely; more than 230 unlicensed gambling services have left the Australian market since enforcement was strengthened in 2017.

H2 Gambling Capital’s 2025 report, cited by industry reporting, estimates that Australians lose about A$3.9 billion a year to illegal gambling sites, and that the share of gambling going through legal channels fell from 74% in 2021 to 64%. The legal-channel share is the figure the regulator’s enforcement is trying to push back up; the A$3.9 billion is the figure it is trying to push down. An Inclave casinos list, read against those two numbers, is a list of where a slice of the A$3.9 billion is being captured.

The ACMA’s enforcement record against the eleven brands on this page covers four of the last five years. May 2022 covered the Dama N.V. cluster — Bambet, Dazard, Level Up, Rocketplay, Wild Tornado and Cobra Casinos. September 2022 covered Hollycorn N.V. over Sky Crown and Blue Leo. February 2025 covered EOD Code SRL over Instant Casino. April 2025 covered Sterplay Holding Ltd over Casino Intense. March 2025 covered Dama N.V. over Woo Casino, then May 2025 over Spirit Casino. July 2025 covered Consolutetish S.R.L. over National Casino and Bizzo Casino, and Bamboo Media over Ignition Casino. March 2026 covered Pulsup Ltd over RocketPlay. April 2026 covered Ryker B.V. over Jackbit and CasinOK. The shape is dense: eight warnings in twelve months from February 2025 to April 2026, against operators that between them cover most of the brand names any Inclave list is likely to contain.

What responsible gameplay looks like across several linked sites

A single Inclave login working across several sites makes one part of the player’s life easier — the sign-in — and one part harder — keeping track of total spend. The easier part is the design intent. The harder part is the side effect.

The mitigations the Australian system offers a player who has accounts on more than one of these sites are partial, and the partiality matters. BetStop binds only Australian-licensed online and phone wagering services, which means an offshore casino is not connected to it. A bank-side gambling block — ANZ, Westpac, Commonwealth Bank — works at the merchant-code level, which means it works when the casino’s payment processor reports under that code and is unreliable otherwise; ANZ and Commonwealth Bank themselves publish that not all gambling transactions will be blocked. A self-imposed deposit ceiling set inside one casino’s own responsible-gaming settings does not extend to a second casino on the same Inclave list, because the settings are per-operator.

The National Gambling Helpline is 1800 858 858, free, 24/7, with chat at Gambling Help Online. The line and the chat are Australian-government-funded and are the right first call for a player who is worried about their own spend, regardless of which sites the spend has gone through.

The practical habit that survives the partiality is the spreadsheet. A player with accounts on three of the brands in this table needs a record of deposits to each, withdrawals from each and net position across all three. The Inclave login helps with the first column and is silent on the others. The arithmetic the player needs to do is theirs to do, and the bank’s statement is the only document that does it for them.

The cost the player actually pays

The cost is not in any single deposit. It is in the shape of the offer, which is the same shape across the eleven brands. An offshore casino’s marketing leads with a bonus — a deposit match, free spins, a “welcome package” — and the bonus’s small print does the work the marketing does not. The bonus is paid in bonus funds, not real funds. The bonus funds cannot be withdrawn until a wagering requirement has been met — usually a multiple of the bonus amount, sometimes of the bonus plus the deposit. The wagering requirement has to be cleared on games that contribute different percentages — slots usually 100%, table games often less. A maximum-bet rule sits on top, often around A$5 or A$10 per spin. A maximum-cashout rule sits on top of that. And the casino can refuse the withdrawal at the end of it, with the dispute going to a regulator in Curaçao rather than anywhere the player can vote.

The arithmetic of any bonus on any of these sites is the same shape, and the shape is unfavourable. A player who deposits A$100 and takes a 100% match with a 40-times wagering requirement on the bonus is required to turn over A$4,000 before the bonus funds become withdrawable. The expected cost of that turnover, at a house edge of a few percent on a typical slot, runs into the low hundreds of dollars before the bonus has paid out a cent. The bonus is, in plain terms, a way to make a player run A$4,000 of spins to extract what is, statistically, a few hundred dollars back. The marketing calls that a “welcome package”. The arithmetic calls it a fee for being allowed to play.

None of those small-print terms are unique to Inclave-integrated casinos. They are the small-print terms of the offshore market generally. The Inclave login does not change them. What it changes is how many of them the player can be holding at once.

Where the responsible-gaming posture meets the legal posture

The two postures meet at the same answer: an Australian player with money on an offshore casino is in a position with fewer protections than a player with money on a licensed Australian wagering service, and the protections that do exist — bank-side blocks, BetStop — work on licensed services first. A bank-side block stops transactions at the merchant-code level; an offshore casino’s transactions are sometimes coded under “Betting/Casino Gambling” and sometimes not, and the banks themselves publish that they cannot guarantee coverage. BetStop binds licensed wagering services and not offshore casinos, which means the National Self-Exclusion Register is a tool that works for the legal half of the market and is silent on the other half.

The combined effect is that a player who has self-excluded through BetStop and then signs up to an Inclave-integrated casino has not bypassed the exclusion in any technical sense — BetStop never applied to the offshore casino in the first place. What they have done is moved money from a regulated environment to an unregulated one, and the regulated environment’s protections do not travel with it.

The 2026 reform package changes the advertising and inducement rules from 1 January 2027. The current rule is the current rule. A reader reading this page in late 2026 is reading it under the current rule and one quarter away from the new one.

What the reader should hold from the page

The eleven names are not interchangeable. Some have one ACMA warning; some have two under different operators; some sit across three regulators’ publications and some sit across none. The pattern across the eleven is that Dama N.V. is named four times across three years, Consolutetish S.R.L. is named twice in one round, Hollycorn N.V. is named once for two brands, and several operators appear once each. An Inclave login is a credential, not a passport, a wallet or a KYC pass. The ACMA’s pace is a slow grind punctuated by concentrated rounds; a list that updates weekly cannot keep up with it. The cost the player pays is in the bonus small print, not in any single deposit. And the protections an Australian player has — BetStop, bank-side blocks, AFCA recourse — work on licensed services first and are partial or silent on offshore ones.

Frequently asked questions

Is a casino using the Inclave login system legal for an Australian player to use?

No. Online casino games and online pokies are prohibited interactive gambling services under the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, and no Australian state or territory licenses them. The Inclave login is convenience software and does not change the legal status of the casino that uses it. The individual player is not the target of the IGA — the Act targets the provider — but the player is also outside every protection the Australian system extends to a customer of a licensed wagering service.

What does the Inclave system actually connect between different casino sites?

A credential. An Inclave login is an email-and-password pair — sometimes with a passkey or biometric option on top — that the player reuses across each Inclave-integrated casino they sign up to. The login does not carry balances, wagering history, bonus credit, deposit limits, time-out settings or any responsible-gaming state from one operator to the next. Each casino runs its own wallet, its own KYC and its own responsible-gaming configuration independently.

Do new Inclave casinos share the same account balance as older ones on the network?

No. An Inclave login lets a player re-enter a casino they have signed up to before without re-doing the email-verification flow. It does not merge wallets. A deposit at one casino is a deposit at that casino only, and a withdrawal at one is a withdrawal from that casino only. The marketing language that suggests the network behaves like a single platform is misleading on this point.

Is signing up once through Inclave different from creating a separate account at each site?

At the form-filling level, yes — the email and password do not have to be re-entered. At the KYC level, no. Each casino still runs its own identity, address and source-of-funds checks at the thresholds it sets. The “one sign-up” promise is real for the credential and silent for the verification, and the two are usually run together at the first deposit.

How can someone track total spend across several sites linked by one Inclave login?

The Inclave login does not track spend. The bank statement is the only document that does. A player with accounts on three of the brands in this list needs a record of deposits to each, withdrawals from each and net position across all three, and the bank statement is the source for that record. Bank-side gambling blocks — ANZ, Westpac, Commonwealth Bank — can be set at the card level and will stop transactions under the gambling merchant code, though the banks publish that they cannot guarantee coverage.

What should raise concern about a casino that only recently joined an Inclave list?

Recency is not, by itself, a signal — the ACMA’s enforcement record shows that new brand names on existing operators appear on a regular cycle, and an Inclave-integrated casino that was set up last month is more likely to be a re-brand of a warned operator than a genuinely new entrant. The thing to check is whether the ACMA’s register names the operator, and whether the operator has been named before under a different brand. The eleven rows in the table above are the cases where the regulator has already done that check.