“Grotesque Complicity”: Adland’s Gambling Reform Reckoning

Advertising industry’s reaction to gambling reform has been almost entirely absent, according to one of Australia’s most vocal marketing leaders. Jen Sharpe, founder and managing director of agency Think HQ, published a pointed opinion piece this week accusing the advertising sector of staying silent while politicians did the hard work of passing gambling reform.

Her argument lands just weeks after federal parliament passed sweeping new restrictions on gambling advertising. Here’s what she said, why the timing matters, and what it adds to the reform story we’ve been tracking.

Key Insights: The Advertising Industry Gambling Reform Reaction

• Jen Sharpe, founder of agency Think HQ, published an opinion piece on 4 September 2026 accusing Australia’s advertising industry of “grotesque complicity” with gambling companies.
• Her piece follows a column she wrote almost two years earlier asking why the industry kept working on gambling accounts.
• She argues agencies, media networks, and trade bodies stayed silent throughout the entire reform debate while politicians absorbed the political heat.
• Sharpe references the 2023 “You Win Some, You Lose More” inquiry led by the late Peta Murphy, which recommended a full ban on gambling advertising that parliament didn’t ultimately deliver.
• Her piece calls on the advertising industry to stop producing gambling ads voluntarily, rather than waiting for further regulation to force the issue.

What Did Jen Sharpe Actually Say?

Sharpe’s piece, published on industry outlet Mumbrella, doesn’t hold back. A few of her core arguments:

• The industry profited while politicians took the risk. Sharpe argues gambling companies, media networks, and advertising agencies all quietly kept “cashing the cheques” while lawmakers absorbed public criticism for acting.
• Good creative work makes the problem worse, not better. She specifically calls out well-crafted, funny gambling ads as part of the issue, arguing the same creative talent could be redirected toward preventing harm instead of normalising it.
• Corporate responsibility claims don’t hold up. Sharpe points to agencies that promote social impact case studies and ethical credentials while still producing gambling advertising briefs.
• This is a “when, not if” reckoning. She predicts the industry’s involvement in gambling advertising will eventually be looked back on the same way other harmful advertising categories have been.

Why This Lands Now: The Reform Context

Sharpe’s piece isn’t happening in a vacuum. It’s a direct response to the gambling reform bill that cleared federal parliament in August 2026, introducing a national advertising opt-out register, live sport advertising blackouts, and new restrictions on gambling inducements.

Her argument hinges on a specific contrast. Politicians faced sustained lobbying pressure from sporting codes, media networks, and betting companies, and still passed reform.

The advertising industry itself, by her account, did nothing over the same two-year period. That’s the “complicity” framing driving the piece’s title.

The Peta Murphy Inquiry Sharpe Keeps Returning To

Sharpe’s piece repeatedly references the 2023 parliamentary inquiry chaired by the late Peta Murphy, formally titled “You Win Some, You Lose More.” That inquiry’s central recommendation was a complete, phased ban on gambling advertising, not the narrower restrictions parliament ultimately passed.

Sharpe is careful to acknowledge the reforms as genuine progress. She still argues the gap between what Murphy’s inquiry recommended and what actually passed is exactly the kind of shortfall the advertising industry should have been publicly pushing to close, rather than staying quiet about.

Responsible Gambling: What an Ad Industry Reckoning Doesn’t Change

Sharpe’s piece is aimed at an industry, not at individual punters, but it’s worth pulling out what actually matters for players reading this:

• Advertising influence is real, even when it’s well-made. Sharpe’s point about “brilliant” creative work is a useful reminder that persuasive advertising is designed to work, including on people who already gamble more than they’d like to.
• New restrictions won’t remove every prompt to bet. The gambling ad opt-out register and live sport blackouts reduce exposure, but they don’t eliminate it entirely.
• Your own limits still matter most. Whatever the industry does or doesn’t fix about its advertising practices, responsible gambling still comes down to decisions you make for yourself, not decisions made in a boardroom or a parliament.

Is the Industry Actually Listening?

It’s genuinely too early to say. Sharpe’s piece is one prominent voice, not evidence of an industry-wide shift, and she says as much herself, describing the silence from “agencies, trade bodies and creative leaders” as ongoing rather than already resolved.

What’s notable is who’s making the argument. Sharpe isn’t an outside campaigner. She runs an advertising agency and is making this case from inside the industry she’s criticising, which tends to carry more weight with other agency leaders than external pressure alone.

More AU Gambling Coverage

This story connects directly to our earlier coverage of the gambling reform bill’s passage and the advertising opt-out register at the centre of that legislation. Keep up with all our latest Australian gambling news as the industry’s response continues to unfold.

The Bottom Line on This Advertising Industry Gambling Reform Reaction

Jen Sharpe’s piece won’t change any laws, and she doesn’t claim it will. What it does is put a specific, public challenge to an industry that’s mostly stayed quiet through years of gambling harm debate.

Parliament has already moved on gambling advertising. Whether adland follows with its own reckoning, or keeps producing the ads Sharpe says it should be ashamed of, is the open question her piece leaves hanging.

FAQs About Advertising Industry Gambling Reform

Who is Jen Sharpe and what did she say about gambling advertising?

Jen Sharpe is the founder and managing director of advertising agency Think HQ. She published an opinion piece accusing Australia’s advertising industry of staying silent and profiting from gambling advertising while politicians worked to pass gambling reform legislation.

What is the Peta Murphy inquiry Sharpe references?

It’s the 2023 parliamentary inquiry into online gambling harm, titled “You Win Some, You Lose More,” chaired by the late Peta Murphy. It recommended a complete ban on gambling advertising, which parliament’s eventual reforms did not fully deliver.

Does this opinion piece affect any actual gambling laws?

No. It’s commentary directed at the advertising industry itself, published after Australia’s gambling reform bill had already passed parliament in August 2026.

What is the advertising industry being asked to do?

Sharpe is calling on agencies, media networks, and trade bodies to voluntarily stop producing and running gambling advertising, rather than waiting for further government regulation to force the change.

――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

18+ | Gamble Responsibly. Visit Gambling Help Online or call 1800 858 858 for free, confidential support. You can also register with BetStop, Australia’s national self-exclusion register.

Crazy Vegas may earn a commission when you use certain links on our site, at no extra cost to you. Affiliate Disclosure.

Publish Date: 4 September 2026