- within Strategy, Family and Matrimonial, Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
1. INTRODUCTION
Just over eight months after the notification of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (“Gaming Act 2025”), and following stakeholder engagement, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”) notified the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, 2026 (“Gaming Rules”) on April 22, 2026. The Gaming Act 2025 and the Gaming Rules have been brought into force from May 1, 2026.1
The Gaming Rules provides an architecture to determine how the Online Gaming Authority of India (the “Authority”) functions, principles to determine an online game (and consequently permissible e-sports and online social games), registration of such online games, penalty imposition procedures, etc. while delegating a substantial share of operational design to the Authority through follow-on directions, codes of practice, and advisories. The day-to-day mechanics of permissible e-sports and online social games are set to be overseen by the Authority which includes determining what constitutes online real-money games (“RMG”), prohibited by the Gaming Act 2025. Certain aspects of the Gaming Rules deserve a second look, as analysed below.
2. INSIGHTS
2.1 Determination is Per-Game, Not Per-Operator
The Gaming Rules provide that the determination of whether an online game is an RMG or not under the Gaming Act 2025 “shall be specific to the particular online game and the particular online game service provider offering it and shall not amount to a determination of same or similar online games offered by any other online game service provider”.2 Further, every online game of every online game service provider (where required / opted to be registered) requires a separate registration.3
Since a determination order of the Authority under the Gaming Rules4 is game-specific, an order issued in favour of one operator’s “Game X” does not automatically relieve another operator’s identically built “Game X” from obtaining an independent registration. Each operator must independently approach the Authority, either to defend a suo motu inquiry or to apply for registration as an e-sport, demonstrating the technical architecture, gameplay mechanics, revenue model and user interface5 of that operator’s specific build will be examined in isolation.
In practice, two operators may offer the same competitive online card game with materially identical rules, but the determination outcome could vary based on subtle differences in how each platform routes payments, treats subscriber wallets, or rewards in-game progression. The same consideration can reappear with white-label or licensed gameplay. Even where a tournament organiser hosts a publisher’s e-sport game, it may technically be a separate “online game service provider” and may need to meet its own registration. The e-sport publisher or game studio having already obtained a registration separately as an online game service provider would not suffice. The Authority is empowered to issue directions, orders, guidelines or codes of practice6 , through which it may be possible to recognise pre-determined “reference architectures” for common gameplay formats so that operators offering substantively identical games may register against a known template. Until such clarity is provided, the Authority may receive multiple applications for registration of e-sports or online social games which are, to a player, the same game.
2.2 Factors Influencing Determination Orders
The Gaming Rules lists the factors the Authority must weigh in determining whether an online game is an online money game.7 These include whether fees or stakes are paid at any stage, whether users have an expectation of “monetary or other enrichment”8 in return, whether payments are structured as a competition entry fee, an access subscription, or a wager, the structure of the revenue model, and the manner in which rewards or in-game assets may be transferred, redeemed, monetised, or used outside the game environment.
The above-mentioned factors are largely subjective, case-specific and devoid of overarching guardrails, unlike the clear jurisprudence of e.g., skill-based poker and rummy contests laid down by Indian courts. To illustrate, a competitive mobile shooter game may charge for an annual season pass as well as for additional experience points (“XP”), where the XP unlocks cosmetic skins tradeable on a community marketplace. The season pass may be a permissible access subscription fee9 , whereas charging for XP resulting in skins transferable on the marketplace could push the same permissible game into impermissible RMG territory.
The factors of determination being non-cumulative gives the Authority broad latitude. Operators may be advised to design games with the most vulnerable factor in mind, to avoid being determined as an RMG post-design and production.
2.3 Delegated Authority
The Gaming Rules delegate operational rule-making to the Authority in the form of advisories, directions, orders, guidelines or codes of practice.10 These cover registration procedure, grievance redressal, user verifications, financial transactions, payment routing, fair play, cybersecurity, user safety, periodic compliance reporting, furnishing of information, and verification of certificates of registration. These delegated powers also shape substantive compliance of online game service providers on point of contact11 , data retention12 , financial transactions13 and verification of certificates of registration14. Rules 16, 17, 18 and 19 each defer almost entirely to those follow-on instruments for the substantive rules.
The pattern is not unfamiliar since MeitY has gravitated towards advisories as the preferred tool to regulate internet intermediaries as well as deployment of artificial intelligence under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 202115. While the advantage that such delegated powers offer is regulatory agility in the face of new-age threats, game operators could potentially face tighter timelines for compliance, no reprieve to provide feedback through stakeholder consultations and leave little room for legal challenge unless there is distinct erosion of due process.
Online game service providers should put in place internal compliance teams capable of rapid updates and undertake policy efforts seeking the Authority to publish indicative guardrails through advisories.
2.4 Focus on Financial Transactions
A key focus of the Gaming Rules is on financial transactions and authorisation of funds. The Gaming Act 2025 prohibited facilitation of fund transfers towards online money games16. The Gaming Rules now operationalise the same by enabling the Authority to issue directions to facilitators17, authorising rule-making on the deposit of money and on facilitation, routing and settlement of payments18, imposing compliance obligations on financial transaction facilitators19, and verification of a determination order or the Certificate of Registration prior to facilitation of financial transactions or authorisation of funds.
In effect, financial transaction facilitators such as banks, payment aggregators and other payment system providers will have to verify the validity of a favourable determination of a game format before processing payments to or from an online game service provider for such games. This may give rise to a parallel and sector-specific compliance layer alongside the Reserve Bank of India’s (“RBI”) payments and KYC framework, including existing merchant-onboarding and KYC obligations applicable on RBI regulated Payment Aggregators.
2.5 Repayment of User Funds in Limbo
The draft version of the Online Gaming Rules provided that online RMG operators may refund unutilised user balances up to 180 days from the enforcement of the Gaming Act 2025 without attracting the prohibition under the Act20. This provision has been omitted from the Gaming Rules as notified.
Many erstwhile RMG operators have pivoted to free-to-play models since the publication of the Gaming Act 2025 in the Gazette of India, but retain user-deposited balances on their books. Without a statutory mandate to refund, operators may be caught between (a) retaining balances against a contractual obligation to honour withdrawal requests to avoid violating the Gaming Act 2025 from May 1, 2026, (b) offering to convert balances into in-game currency for a permitted social game (without taking the colour of an RMG), or (c) leaving the balances dormant. Each possibility may attract different legal risks regarding consumer protection, unclaimed deposits, and possible violation of the Gaming Act 2025.
Clarity on treatment of current user deposits by the Authority through advisories, directions or guidelines addressing possible solutions such as permissible withdrawal windows or segregating user balances into escrow or trust structures may ease such operators’ concerns.
2.6 Possible Concentration of Game Formats
Prior to the Gaming Act 2025 taking effect, the Indian RMG market witnessed numerous game formats based substantively on the formats of rummy and poker that have been tried and tested by Indian courts. The Gaming Rules may give rise to a similar dynamic. Once the initial set of determination orders are issued by the Authority on any particular online social game format/s as permissible, game operators are likely to converge on such greenlighted formats with cosmetic changes, resulting in a concentration of a few game formats in the market.
3. CONCLUSION
With the Gaming Act 2025 and the Gaming Rules being in force from May 1, 2026, India’s online gaming sector has entered a new phase. In the near term, the list of determined online money games and the register of registered e-sports and social games by the Authority on its website may act as de facto compliance bibles. Any advisories regarding payments and verification of determination before facilitation of financial transactions would have the most immediate effect on revenue models of online game service operations. where the operational pinch is most immediate. Lastly, judicial determinations by the Supreme Court of India in ongoing proceedings on the constitutionality of the Gaming Act 202521, and applicable goods and services tax (GST) brackets on RMG operators22 will also play a significant part in shaping the future of the Indian gaming industry.
Footnotes
1. Gazette Notification by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology dated April 22, 2026, available at (accessed May 4, 2026). https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/04/089ca9904b13f019b41a391584ab10ea.pdf
2. Explanation to Rule 10(2) of the Gaming Rules.
3. Rule 12(4) of the Gaming Rules.
4. Rule 10(2) of the Gaming Rules.
5. Rule 10(1)(b) of the Gaming Rules.
6. Rule 6(4) of the Gaming Rules.
7. Rule 9 of the Gaming Rules.
8. Rule 9(b) of the Gaming Rules.
9. Rule 9(c)(ii) of the Gaming Rules.
10. Rules 6(1) and 6(4) of the Gaming Rules.
11. Rule 16 of the Gaming Rules.
12. Rule 17 of the Gaming Rules.
13. Rule 18 of the Gaming Rules
14. Rule 19 of the Gaming Rules.
15. MeitY has issued draft amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 proposing legal sanctity to executive clarifications, advisories and directions issued by it under the said rules. The MeitY notice inviting feedback/comments on these proposed amendments is available at (accessed May 4, 2026). https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/03/a71a21d35c107f2e528363d3eb17646a.pdf
16. Section 7 of the Gaming Act 2025.
17. Rule 6(1)(d) of the Gaming Rules.
18. Rules 6(4)(d) and 6(4)(f) of the Gaming Rules.
19. Rule 18 of the Gaming Rules.
20. Draft rule 24 of the draft Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, 2025.
21. Union of India v. Head Digital Works Private Limited and Anr., T.P.(C) No. 2484-2486/2025.
22. GST Intelligence Directorate v. Gameskraft Technologies (P) Ltd., SLP (C) No. 19366/2023.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
