A Western Australian comedian has questioned how a private venue ban can appear across multiple licensed premises after claiming he was barred from venues using ScanTek ID scanners for 12 months without being clearly told why.

Jasky Singh, a father and online comedian known for street-style interview videos, said he discovered he had been placed on a statewide ScanTek-linked ban months after being refused entry to The Gold Bar in Kalgoorlie.

Singh told the Daily Mail he had been filming vox pop content near the venue in November and attempted to enter the pub at the end of the shoot, expecting it would make a light-hearted conclusion to the video.

But he said he was refused entry after providing his ID and was not given a clear reason by security.

It was only about five months later, when he attempted to enter another venue for a friend’s event, that he said he learned the ban applied to venues using ScanTek devices until November 2026.

“I showed my ID and the woman at the door looked so surprised that I was even trying to get in,” Singh said.

“She said I wasn’t allowed in any ScanTek venues until November 2026.”

Singh said he was shocked because he rarely goes out and did not understand how a single incident at a venue he says he never entered had resulted in such a broad restriction.

“I’m just frustrated that one person decides to have whatever moment he has, and puts me on a statewide ban for 12 months,” he said.

“I hadn’t even gone into the venue. I was incredibly shocked.”

Singh said he contacted the independent security firm contracted to the Kalgoorlie pub to ask why he had been banned. He claims he was told he had harassed security, among other allegations, but said he was not given details when he asked for clarification.

“I was trying to understand any reasoning and they just hung up the phone,” he said.

The Gold Bar and the contracted security firm reportedly declined to comment when approached by the Daily Mail.

Singh has since posted a video about the matter, which has attracted more than 1.4 million views and sparked debate about ID scanning systems, private venue bans and the level of explanation owed to patrons.

Some social media users said they had experienced similar bans linked to ScanTek, while others called for more information about the venue’s version of events.

Singh said he understood venues had the right to refuse entry and impose consequences for poor behaviour, but argued people should at least be told what they are accused of and given a way to respond.

“Give me the reasoning and if I have done something wrong, that’s okay. I understand there’s repercussions for being an idiot,” he said.

“One person’s opinion of whatever took place should not allow them to have that sort of power over someone whose life it may affect.”

The case has drawn attention to how private ID scanning and patron management systems operate across Australia’s nightlife economy.

ScanTek’s own guidance says the company provides technology and hardware to venues or issuing authorities to place bans on patrons, but says it does not itself make, investigate, alter or remove bans. According to ScanTek, a banned status may be visible to other venues using its scanners, although that does not automatically mean a patron is banned from all venues.

The company says patrons who want information about a ban can submit a banned patron request form, but must contact the venue that placed the ban to seek removal or changes.

The system is designed to help venues identify banned or flagged patrons, but Singh’s case has raised questions about transparency, accountability and appeal rights when a private venue decision can follow a person across multiple businesses.

In Western Australia, the separate government-backed Banned Drinkers Register operates in some regions to prevent listed people from buying takeaway alcohol. However, Singh’s case appears to relate to a private venue-entry ban linked to ScanTek-enabled venues, not a government register.

For Singh, the ban may not heavily affect his personal life, but he said it could interfere with his work as a content creator.

“It’s very unpleasant behaviour and I think you’ve got to at least respond to people like humans,” he said.

The controversy is now likely to add pressure for clearer rules around how private venue bans are issued, shared and challenged, particularly when digital ID systems can affect access to multiple venues far beyond the location of the original alleged incident.