The Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority, a body set up to regulate online games has introduced new rules for online real money games or RMGs like fantasy sports and solitaire. The regulator aims to mitigate gaming addiction and the distress caused by financial losses.
Under the new regulations, gaming companies must allow users to set daily, weekly and monthly limits on the amount of money and time they spend on their apps. The regulations don’t allow users to play RMGs from midnight to 5 am and require gaming apps to caution users indulging in prolonged uninterrupted play.
But should a regulator decide what citizens do with their time and money? Unfortunately, this is an extension of the paternalism citizens are inured to, and has unintended second-order impacts. Take, for example, state-level alcohol bans that drive people toward lower-quality alternatives like hooch, which have led to hundreds, if not thousands, of deaths in states like Bihar and Gujarat.
Impact on digital rights
The rules have a wide impact on digital rights. The right to freedom of speech and expression under the Indian Constitution includes the right to seek and receive information. The state cannot restrict this right through arbitrary action, which means the state must exercise care and support its intervention with evidence.
Time limits restrict citizens from accessing information online, but evidence from South Korea, China and Taiwan shows that mandatory limits are counterproductive. Forcibly removing players from gaming environments leads to more distress and a desire to play more. They also push users toward the black market of offshore betting and gambling.
State-level restrictions on content are not new. They are reminiscent of movie bans on titles like Padmaavat (2018) and The Kerala Story (2023). States justify ban on films on grounds of public safety, and potential law and order concerns. But even so, courts have held that films shouldn’t be banned in one state get released in another. And unlike cinema, online gaming is largely a private activity with no proven public safety implications. How will Tamil Nadu justify a five-hour shutdown requirement for RMGs, when the same information is accessible in other states?
Adding complexity, lacking enforceability
The borderless nature of the internet coupled with India’s quasi-federal structure complicates state-level regulation of digital content. Tamil Nadu’s new regulations impose unique obligations like shutdown hours, time and spending limits, and caution messages. These obligations do not apply elsewhere, creating an uneven regulatory landscape across the country.
Moreover, enforcing bans requires state-wise geographical restrictions in the digital space—which are currently impossible. The Andhra Pradesh government banned all RMGs and called on the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to block access to 132 websites within the state, in 2020. MeitY did not intervene, likely because the architecture and governance of the internet does not allow it to.
Also read: New IT Rules give much-needed legal support to online gaming. But there’s more homework to do
One Nation, One Market
Let’s assume state governments somehow overcome the legal and technological challenges discussed here. What does that mean for gaming companies and India’s digital economy? RMG apps have three options—to modify their product specifically for users in the state, change their product to align with state regulations, or exit the state altogether. The first two options require product modifications, which are impractical and costly, especially for startups. Moreover, if a company decides to modify its product to meet a state’s template—it sets a precedent. Other states can enact their own regulations and gaming companies will have to navigate a maze of state-specific compliances. Needless to say, the likelihood of gaming companies exiting the state reflects poorly on Tamil Nadu’s investment-friendly credentials.
The digital economy transcends state boundaries and that is its very promise to industry and users alike. State-specific regulations fragment this ideal. State governments admittedly have to address public interest concerns within their borders but they should focus on balancing user protection to maintain a single and indivisible national digital market.
Duty of care
States should prioritise last-mile and situation-specific interventions over sweeping ones. Public-private collaboration is a key ingredient for this. For instance, the Cyber Crime Wing of Tamil Nadu Police can work with registered gaming companies to identify bad actors. It stands to reason that such companies know their playing field better than government authorities. They can also run targeted user-awareness campaigns to warn of problematic behaviour and harmful actors.
Similarly, collaboration with civil society is a prerequisite to achieving a safe gaming environment. Community education sessions with teachers, parents, and counselors can destigmatise attitudes toward gaming orders, and help them detect early signs of addiction, which can supplement the state’s ongoing de-addiction initiatives. A template exists in Kerala’s Digital De-Addiction Centres that use child-friendly techniques to assess the degree of addiction and take individualised action.
Paternal regulations seem to have a predictable cyclicality to them. Every few years a set of policymakers decide that limiting access to an in-demand good or service is possible without private sector and civil society buy-in. The 21st century is replete with examples of why this approach is particularly counterproductive in information societies. It’s high time our states take note.
Varun Ramdas and Vedika Pandey are technology policy experts with Koan Advisory Group. Views are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)
The Left-liberal ecosystem is totally silent on this. But if the BJP were to implement the very same law in some other state administered by it, the entire cabal will be up in arms.
Suddenly, freedom of speech will be in danger and democracy will be under threat.