Latest news with #IntermediaryGuidelines
Hans India
21-05-2025
- Business
- Hans India
The Regulatory Maze: What Indian Businesses Need to Know About Online Gaming and Gambling
A quick look at the gambling industry in India and it soon becomes apparent that it's booming. There are reports that state the industry will be worth more than $5 billion by the end of 2025. The industry is being driven by increasing smartphone penetration, cheap data, and a younger population. This has all come together to offer vast opportunities across the country. However, despite the boom, there are still legal considerations and challenges. If businesses want to be involved in this scene, they need to be fully informed. Skill Vs Chance and the Law The gambling laws in India are focused on whether a game is based on luck or skill. Games of skill are mostly legal across the country, while games of chance are classed as outright gambling and these fall under much stricter scrutiny. Rulings from India's Supreme Court have upheld games such as rummy and fantasy sports as being ones that are based on high levels of skill. This means that they are allowed by law. However, the problem here is that individual states have the power to make their own laws when it comes to gaming and betting, meaning that there's a slack of consistency. This makes it difficult for businesses as what's allowed in one state may well be illegal in another. As an example, states such as Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu have all made moves to outlaw all real-money online even includes games of skill. Then there's the likes of Sikkim and Nagaland that have now introduced licensing regimes for online gaming and this gives a much clearer regulatory framework. A Look at the Main Legislation At a national level, it's the Public Gambling Act of 1867 that governs gambling activities in India. Moves to fully legalise gambling would need to see this law receiving a major overhaul. It dates back to colonial times and it clearly states that visiting a gambling house isn't allowed. However, given the age of the law, there's obviously no mention of online gambling. This makes it a grey area. Recognising that the industry was gaining traction, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 were introduced. Here, a set of obligations was placed on online gaming intermediaries, including due diligence, parental controls, and other measures. There were further changes in 2023 when the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology amended the IT Rules. This was to include specific provisions for online gaming, requiring platforms to register with self-regulatory bodies. It was also stated that only permissible games can be offered, meaning ones that do not involve wagering or betting. State-Level Confusion and Compliance Challenges The biggest issue to be faced by businesses entering the online gaming industry in India is the lack of uniformity across the country. Each state has its own take on how the law can be interpreted and also has the power to set its own, and there can be major differences. Examples include: Sikkim and Nagaland offer licensing systems for online games, including poker and rummy. Kerala initially banned online rummy but this was overruled by the High Court. Karnataka briefly banned all forms of online gaming that involved stakes but this was also overruled. This approach means that businesses need to geo-fence their services so that they can avoid legal penalties. Companies have a great need for legal teams that are able to keep check of the laws as these are constantly evolving. The Categorisation of Games The reality is that it's not always easy to categorise a game as one of skill or chance. If you look at operators offering Royal Riches software, with it being a version of roulette, it could be argued that this is simply a game of luck. However, others would argue that betting strategies and bankroll management mean that this is more about skill. The confusion leaves operators disabling games depending on the region that they are operating in. At times they simply need to switch off features so that they can hit local compliance rules. Offshore Licensing and Regulatory Tensions More and more operators across India are operating under offshore licenses offered by the likes of Curacao, Malta, and Gibraltar. These licenses allow operators to offer gambling services globally, but that doesn't mean that they sit in line with Indian laws, especially when state level can override international decisions and rulings. Offshore operators argue that licensing means that they are operating under reputable conditions and that they ensure fair play and transparency. However, Indian authorities are concerned that they are unable to wield any real control when operators are based outside of the country. When looking at live casino games that are regulated and licensed in Europe, there needs to be a degree of localisation for them to be accepted in India. The likes of excel here, by creating live games that are given a local feel so that they appeal to specific markets. These can often be enjoyed by players using VPNs who are satisfied that operators are working to international levels of compliance that ensure their safety and protection. The Road Ahead The demand for online gambling is only set to grow in India in coming years. This means that there is a real need for a centralised regulatory framework sooner rather than later. The law either needs to open up and accept most forms of online gambling or it needs to be reformed so that there is a clear distinction between games of luck and chance. Businesses trying to operate in this area need to be careful and perform regular legal audits. There needs to be close attention paid to state-level legislation while hoping for nationwide change and conformity. There is also a need to ensure that they only partner with software platforms that are proven in the area. This will help to ensure that compliance is understood and mitigate any risk.
Indian Express
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
The ‘who' and the ‘how' of OTT content regulation
Written by Lakshita Handa and Pragya Singh The Supreme Court, whilst expressing concern regarding the regulation of content on Over the Top (OTT) platforms and social media, urged the Centre to do 'something legislative' about the obscene and indecent nature of content streamed through such platforms. The Supreme Court's observations came in the wake of the recent 'India's Got Latent' controversy, which sparked debate on the need to further align OTT content with laws and ethical guidelines. This is indeed not the first time that public grievances against obscene content on social media and OTT have been flagged. While the 'what' and 'why' parts of the need for regulation seem clear, the 'who' and 'how' parts of it warrant closer inspection. Whose problem is it anyway? Most definitions of OTT describe it as a media service, which is delivered over the existing communication infrastructure, i.e., the internet, at the request of individual consumers. Due to the blended nature of OTT streaming, efforts to regulate the OTT space have resulted in a turf war between the holy trifecta: the Ministry of Information Technology (MeiTY), the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). With the rise of OTT content consumption post-2020, MeiTY notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, to regulate intermediaries, OTT platforms and digital news media organisations. The 2021 Rules laid down a Code of Ethics (Code) for such entities, requiring them to fulfil certain due diligence obligations, such as setting up a three-tier structure for regulation. Under the Code, the first tier is self-regulation by the intermediary/publisher; the second tier is regulation by a self-regulating body of the publishers; and the third is regulation by an interdepartmental committee to exercise oversight, hear and examine grievances. The Code prohibits OTT platforms from transmitting unlawful content and mandates age-based classification based on the context, theme, tone, impact and target audience of the content. Despite this effort to control objectionable content streamed on OTT platforms, the Code has been interpreted as a mere set of guidelines with no consequences for non-compliance. Notably, the Code did not account for the extent of autonomy that the OTT content providers have over their platform and content. This autonomy exists both in terms of infrastructure and finances. It may be contended that the Code demonstrated regulatory creep into the field of the MIB, as well as a complete lack of understanding of the information communication technology frameworks within which OTT content travels. The tools for regulation were thus borrowed from the pre-existing model of social media and internet intermediary regulation. This issue was attempted to be addressed by the Indian Telecommunications Services Bill, 2023, where telecommunication service providers and OTT platforms were brought under the same loose definition. However, despite some similarities, the internet service providers and the telecommunications service providers cannot be compared to the OTT content providers. Attempts to regulate OTT by regulating telecom providers were met with resistance due to the stark differences between the two. For one, telecommunication service providers are licensed, unlike OTT platforms. OTT platforms also do not sell internet access, since the availability of internet services is a prerequisite for availing OTT content in the first place. To create a comprehensive legal framework for all broadcast content, MIB, through the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023, again sought to bring OTT platforms and digital news channels within its ambit. Here, as well, crucial dissimilarities persist. Broadcasting involves control of end-to-end infrastructure as well as the content broadcast on the infrastructure, whereas OTT streaming does not focus on the infrastructure (internet) over which it is shared. Similar to the provider-based regulation model under the IT Rules and the Draft Indian Telecommunications Services Bill, 2022, the Broadcasting Bill was met with resistance. Interestingly, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal in an October 2024 order held that OTT platforms were outside the purview of the TRAI Act and were to be solely governed by the 2021 Rules. How can feasible regulations be built? Support for structured regulation of OTT platforms and content has become pronounced not only by way of judicial endorsement but through internationally recognised practices. Due to the nature of these platforms, they run a risk of propagating harmful content to the public. The common denominator that justifies the need for further regulation is the public, which is able to watch both pull and push media at the same frequency with expanding technological ease. Difficulty in grasping the subject matter of regulation, as well as the nuances associated with OTT streaming, has inhibited the creation of a sound legal framework. Any attempt to address this must involve cross-cutting expertise spanning areas of information technology, broadcasting as well as telecommunications. A tripartite body that builds upon the jurisprudential understanding of content regulation whilst upholding the dynamism and flexibility of regulating the internet, from the field of information technology, should be developed to draft bespoke regulations for OTT content and service providers. Additionally, the regulatory body, whether it is a government department or a newly constituted authority, must ensure that a higher-degree of co-regulation is accommodated. This may mean retaining a degree of self-regulation with platforms for flexibility. Further, the similarities and dissimilarities of OTT content streaming vis-a-vis traditional broadcasting or telecommunications should be factored in to ensure that the final legal framework captures this deeper understanding. For instance, registration of service providers may draw on procedures established under the Broadcasting Bill. Whereas, the regulation of infrastructure maintained by OTT platforms may be regulated as per TRAI's recommendations. Finally, the content may be regulated as per the standards developed by MIB. In the course of formulating such regulations, due care must be taken to ensure that they do not have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression. Hence, what constitutes 'harmful' or 'offensive' content should be clearly delineated within the regulation to avoid vague and arbitrary interpretations. For instance, Section 66-A of the IT Act, 2000, which penalised sending 'grossly offensive' or 'menacing information' through a computer device was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015. The Court found the language of the provision to be overly broad and vague, with the potential for misuse. In similar terms, the importance of protecting free speech and expression in the digital age was underscored. Provisions that automatically empower authorities to block content without judicial oversight should also be avoided at all costs, since they may promote whimsical censorship at the behest of the State. Concepts of 'morality' and 'obscenity' are ever-evolving. They vary across place, time and sensibilities of the recipient. Voices of persons from marginalised communities or vulnerable groups should be considered to ensure that critical depictions of societal practices or evils are not silenced through excessive content regulation. Content-based guidelines must incorporate a review clause, which ensures that content regulation undergoes frequent and deliberate reassessments to stay attuned with social realities. In any case, OTT regulation should aim at striking a balance between freedom of speech and social sensitivities. A key to developing a balanced framework may entail conducting consultations with digital platforms, content creators, government entities, civil society organisations, as well as other stakeholders that may be considered relevant. There is undoubtedly a need to set up soft-touch regulatory frameworks to regulate the content streamed on OTT platforms. While extending censorship and film certification processes to OTT content may not be feasible, age-based classification should be more strictly enforced. Similarly, the concept of self-regulation should be retained whilst ensuring better operationalisation and enforcement of existing standards, such as those laid down under the 2021 Rules. However, any such fresh legal frameworks should improve upon existing regulations – for instance, publishers have not been provided a right to appeal against decisions of the self-regulating body under the 2021 Rules, whereas those who have a grievance against the publisher have a right to appeal. This leaves publishers with no further legal recourse and must therefore be modified. Tools such as automated profanity filters and user-report-driven content scanners may be utilised by OTT platforms to facilitate self-regulation of their content. Other methods for better adherence to standards may also be identified based on consultative discussions with concerned stakeholders. In doing so, rights and values enshrined under the Constitution of India should be upheld, and the bespoke nature of OTT should be recognised, i.e., making diverse and creative content available to the general public. Lakshita and Pragya are Senior Resident Fellows with the Legal Design and Regulation Team at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
Hindustan Times
09-05-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
No Pakistani films, shows, or music on Indian OTTs: Govt
The government on Friday issued an advisory to over-the-top (OTT) platforms, streaming platforms, and digital intermediaries against carrying content originating from Pakistan 'with immediate effect'. While the advisory, issued by the ministry of information and broadcasting (MIB), does not cite specific companies, it said content, including web series, films, songs, podcasts, and other streaming media must be discontinued. 'In the interest of national security, all OTT platforms, media streaming platforms and intermediaries operating in India are advised to discontinue the web-series, films, songs, podcasts and other streaming media content, whether made available on a subscription-based model or otherwise, having its origins in Pakistan with immediate effect,' the advisory said. The advisory, issued under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, reminds platforms of their duty to follow the Code of Ethics and ensure content does not harm India's sovereignty, security, foreign relations, or public order. The advisory also points to Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules, which says that platforms must try to ensure that neither they nor their users share any content that could harm India's unity, security, or relations with other countries. Since the advisory is non-binding in nature, OTT platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Disney+ Hotstar among others, and digital intermediaries such as YouTube and Spotify can review and remove content that originates from Pakistan. 'While it's a non-binding advisory, the directive language of it presents it as an expectation rather than a suggestion,' said Abhivardhan, technology law specialist and founder of legal consultancy Indic Pacific. Meanwhile, people familiar with the matter said that the MIB and the IT ministry are working in 'heightened coordination with each other' to deal with disinformation online.
Time of India
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
No more Pakistani content: India's stern directive to streaming platforms
In a significant move citing national security imperatives, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), Government of India, has issued a sweeping advisory mandating the immediate removal of all streaming content originating from Pakistan . The directive impacts all Publishers of Online Curated Content (OTT Platforms), media streaming services, and intermediaries operating within the country. The official statement explicitly instructs these entities to "discontinue the web-series, films, songs, podcasts and other streaming media content... having its origins in Pakistan with immediate effect," regardless of their availability model, whether subscription-based or otherwise. The MIB's advisory underscores the critical need for content platforms to exercise "due caution and discretion" as outlined in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. It specifically points to clauses concerning content that could potentially undermine India's sovereignty and integrity, pose a threat to national security, jeopardize friendly relations with foreign nations, or incite violence and disrupt public order. Drawing a direct link between the advisory and national security concerns, the Ministry explicitly references the established cross-border connections of terrorist attacks in India to state and non-state actors based in Pakistan. The recent deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025, which tragically resulted in the loss of Indian and Nepali lives and caused numerous injuries, is specifically mentioned as a key factor prompting this decisive action. This directive, issued with the full approval of the competent authority within the Ministry, unequivocally signals a robust and uncompromising stance by the Indian government regarding content originating from Pakistan.
The Hindu
01-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court disposed of Shiv Sena MLA's PIL on misuse of digital platforms by influencers
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (April 30, 2025) disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a sitting MLA, Kiran Samant (52) from Rajapur Assembly Constituency in Ratnagiri, Maharashtra, raising grave concerns arising out of rampant misuse and abuse of internet and social media platforms by certain influential personalities. The petition claimed that under the garb of free speech, the influencers are commercialising their content while deliberately spreading material that is scandalous, derogatory and demeaning to the judiciary and executive of India thereby posing a serious threat to public order, harmony and the rule of law. The respondents in the matter are Government of India, GOOGLE LLC and satirist and stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra. The MLA has impleaded Mr. Kamra for publishing contemptuous material on YouTube and the Government of India and GOOGLE for failing to regulate such contents. Calling for enforcement of the IT Act, 2000, and the Intermediary Guidelines (2021), the petitioner has sought judicial directions to ensure accountability, responsible content moderation and protection of the judiciary from being targeted for commercial gain under the cloak of satire or criticism. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M. S. Karnik questioned why Mr. Karma was added in the case and said that it is a general PIL asking to curb the misuse of digital platforms by influencers, public personalities and comedians, hence, relief cannot be granted. 'What according to you may be misuse of social media platform, can be free of speech for the society. Who will decide whether it is a use or a misuse? I don't know how to grant this relief. This is selective targeting. You have impeded only one person but there are several others who say things about judiciary, and you haven't Impleaded them,' the Bench observed. Mr. Samant argued that Mr. Kamra's tweets calling the Supreme Court 'the most Supreme joke of this country' and makes contemptuous remarks about retired Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. 'Kamra posts an image of his fingers on Twitter with a caption aimed at CJI Arvind Bobde, interpreted as showing the middle finger. Contempt proceedings initiated against Mr. Kamra in the Supreme Court; then Attorney General K.K. Venugopal opines that Kamra's tweets amount contempt. Stand-up video titled 'Be Like' uploaded on YouTube by Kamra containing vulgar and demeaning remarks about the judiciary,' the petition said. The MLA also said that the comedian makes content to mock independent agencies like the ED, CBI and judiciary and monetises such material through digital platform and recently uploaded a new video titled 'Naya Bharat A Comedy Special' on YouTube containing contemptuous content; the video garners 1.25 crore views. Hearing the matter, the Bench said, 'You cannot determine what is reasonable and what is not. There is a law regulating these platforms and the court decides whether it is offensive or not. This PIL is directed against just responded 3 (Mr. Kamra). If guidelines are breached, you file a complaint, but PIL against an individual cannot be entertained.' Senior advocate Darius Khambata argued that the petition seeks order against just one respondent. 'The petition seeks direction of vigilance of social media. This matter is before the Supreme Court now.' On the petition seeking direction on the formation of a Social Media Vigilance Committee, the Bench said it is in the realm of policy making and thus it cannot issue direction on the prayer and his prayed to direct the IT Ministry to implement the IT Act and Rules is coached in general and wide terms. The court noted that it was open for the petitioner to approach an appropriate authority for the misuse of social media and disposed of the petition.
