Conflicts rise as firms prep responses to draft online gaming rules

New Delhi: India’s beleaguered online real-money gaming industry stakeholders have questioned what they call ambiguities in the draft rules of the law that bans any game involving financial winnings.

As firms prepare to file representations with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity), legal experts and executives said the concerns revolve around the efficacy of the proposed oversight committee, compliance requirements of casual games, and the lack of distinction for esports tournaments.

The first draft of the rules for India’s Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 was published late on Thursday by Meity, just over a month after the contentious law banning online real-money gaming received the president’s assent after clearing both houses of the parliament. The 17-page draft suggests the formation of an oversight body for the sector, titled Online Gaming Authority of India. It also proposes a multi-ministerial layer of compliance for the law, involving the ministries of finance, and sports and youth affairs.

Industry pushback

“The biggest challenge that the rules have once again overlooked is to have proposed setting up a committee for such a specialized field without adequate industry expert representation. Evaluating games solely from the ambit of money transactions is not enough, because games involve transactions of various kinds,” said Jay Sayta, a technology and gaming lawyer. “Further, bureaucrats already have a heavy workload—appointing them to yet another authority will only lead to stalled procedures, heavy paperwork, and a backlog of operations that would put global game developers off from entering the massive consumer market of India.”

Sayta, who represents multiple top gaming firms in court, will submit his responses to the draft rules during the consultation window, which ends on 31 October. Unless a second consultation window is appointed, Meity may take the comments into consideration and make changes to the rules of the law, before notifying them.

A senior executive with a top online gaming industry body said they have “left much room for ambiguity.”

Legal uncertainty

“Rule 4(2) of the law said that online social games, which involve no financial transactions, will need to register with the Online Gaming Authority of India in order to operate legally under the ambit of this law. However, the very next rule goes on to state quite the opposite—that online social games may be made available without registering with the Authority,” the executive said. “This leaves much room for ambiguity and could cause regulatory back-roads—which games would need to register? And, which wouldn’t? As per the current rules, that’s hard to interpret.”

A second executive, who offers legal advice to top online gaming companies, said the draft rules emphasize “heavy-handed regulation proposed by the online gaming rules.”

“Post the ban, the online gaming industry of India is unlikely to even add up to $1 billion in annual revenue at the moment,” the executive said.

Citing that the sports ministry will recognize e-sports and the finance ministry will track financial transactions, the executive said that “this not only creates an unfavourable regulatory environment, but reduces the possibility of foreign gaming giants jumping through so many hoops—even if the Centre wants to showcase this law as one that promotes gaming sans money”.

Both the executives, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that adequate representations are being framed as part of the consultation process, and respective responses will be filed with Meity by 31 October.

Companies have not yet voiced concerns about the rules. A top executive at Dream11 could not respond until press time.

However, Gameskraft, Games24x7, Mobile Premier League and Dream11 have all spoken about complying with the tenets of the law—and begun modifying their products in question already.

Sayta said the industry would propose a longer wait period until the law is notified. “The industry has appealed against the constitutionality of the law itself, and the matter remains sub judice at the Supreme Court. Until then, our efforts will be that in case the law is indeed brought into effect, we can hopefully reduce the heavy-handed regulatory approach that it has taken right now.”