Gaurav Bhalla , Ashneet Hanspal
April 14, 2023
In our previous posts on this subject, we’ve analyzed different aspects of the proposed regulatory mechanism. So far, we’ve scrutinized the statutory definitions (pertaining to ‘online games’ and ‘online gaming intermediaries’) which have been incorporated in the Amendment Rules [under Rules 2(qa) to (qf)] as well as the expansion of due diligence requirements [under rule 3] imposed on intermediaries (including the newly distinguished ‘online gaming intermediaries’). We’ve also analyzed the amendments concerning the functioning of the Grievance Appellate Committee (established pursuant to rule 3A of the IT Rules) and the additional due diligence requirements imposed [under rule 4] thereunder (for certain categories of intermediaries).
In the instant (and final post) of the series, we’ve examined the prescribed procedures for verification of online real money games (and online gaming self-regulatory bodies’ proposed to be set up in this regard) [under rule 4A] as well as the additional requirements (in relation to online games and online real money games) set out in the Amendment Rules [under Rules 4B and C]. Our observations concerning the relevant provisions are as follows.
Verification Of Online Real Money Games
The Amendment Rules provide that MeitY may notify several ‘online gaming self-regulatory bodies’ for verifying an ‘online real money game’ as a ‘permissible online real money game’.
For reference, the Amendment Rules define an ‘online real money game’ as an ‘…online game where a user makes a deposit in cash or kind with the expectation of earning winnings on that deposit. The term ‘winnings’ (for the purpose of the definition) refers to ‘any prize, in cash or kind, which is distributed or intended to be distributed to a user of an online game based on the performance of the user and in accordance with the rules of such online game…’. To recall (as observed in our first post on the Amendment Rules), the scope of this (quite broad and subjective) definition thus covers any online game in which a user may participate (through payment in cash or kind) with the expectation of winning vouchers or discounts or other similar perks (not just monetary prizes).
Designation Of ‘Online Gaming Self-Regulatory Bodies’: It is pertinent to note that the role of the ‘online gaming self-regulatory bodies’ proposed to be established by the Indian government would be critical for the gaming industry in the time to come. This is because a ‘permissible online real money game’ (under the Amended Rules) includes only an ‘online real money game’ which is verified by an ‘online gaming self-regulatory body’ proposed to be set up under the Amendment Rules.
Importantly, under the Amendment Rules, only select entities – necessarily being [private limited] companies registered under [section 8 of] the Indian Companies Act, 2013 – may be designated (upon application) as an ‘online gaming self-regulatory body’, provided such entities meet the following criteria:
Manner of Verification of ‘Permissible Online Real Money Games
An online gaming intermediary – necessarily being a member of an ‘online gaming self-regulatory body’ – may apply (to the relevant body) for the verification of an ‘online real money game’, as a ‘permissible online real money game’ under the Amendment Rules. Thereafter, the relevant body may designate the relevant game as a ‘permissible online real money game’ only if – upon inquiry
- The relevant body finds that the below-set criteria have been suitably satisfied:
Notably, the Amendment Rules provide that an online gaming self-regulatory body may make an initial declaration as regards an ‘online real money game’ qualifying as a ‘permissible online real money game’ in reliance upon only the information furnished by an applicant (for the purpose of verification) – however such declaration can be validly made only ‘…for a period not exceeding three months…’. In this regard, the Amendment Rules further provide that the relevant online gaming self-regulatory body (having made the initial declaration) must ‘… endeavor to complete the inquiry within the said period of three months and, upon its completion, either declare the online real money game as a permissible online real money game or inform the applicant in writing with the reasons thereof that such online game does not meet the requirements…’ under the Amendment Rules.
As part of obligations prescribed under the Amendment Rules (in relation to verification of online real money games, as elaborated hereunder), upon verification of an online real money game as a permissible online real money game (in the manner mentioned above), the relevant applicant/online gaming intermediary (which ‘…enables access to such online real money game…’) is required to display a ‘…demonstrable and visible mark of such verification stating that the online real money game is verified by the online gaming self-regulatory body as a permissible online real money game…’ under the Amendment Rules.
Obligations Of ‘Online Gaming Self-Regulatory Bodies’
The following obligations are prescribed under the Amendment Rules (in relation to verification of online real money games) specifically for online gaming self-regulatory bodies (as may be designated thereunder).
Notably, an online gaming self-regulatory body is required to ‘publish and maintain’ the following on its website and/or mobile application (as may be applicable):
As mentioned above, under the Amendment Rules, a gaming self-regulatory body holds the right to suspend or revoke the verification of an online real money game verified by it at any time, if it is satisfied that the same is not in compliance with the provisions of the Amendment Rules. As further mentioned above, however, the relevant body is required to communicate its reasons (concerning its decision to revoke or suspend verification) to the relevant online gaming/applicant member in writing as well as grant such member the opportunity of being heard.
An online gaming self-regulatory body is further required to ‘prominently publish’ the following on its website and/or mobile application (as may be applicable). [For reference, the term ‘prominently publish’ has been defined under the Amendment Rules as ‘…publishing in a clearly visible manner on the home page of the website or the home screen of the mobile-based application, or both, as the case may be, or on a web page or an app screen directly accessible from the home page or home screen…’].
Administration and Enforcement of the Amendment Rules
The Amendment Rules provide the Indian government discretional powers to direct an online gaming self-regulatory body to furnish to the government, or to disclose on its online platform, any information as the government may specify in its direction.
While it is provided that MeitY will take into consideration any reasons and other details published by the online gaming self-regulatory body (on its online platform) in respect of its verification of any permissible online real money game, before issuing any directions in accordance with the
Amendment Rules, however, if the government is ‘…of the view that any verification of a permissible online real money game by an online gaming self-regulatory body is not in conformity with these rules, it may, after giving such body an opportunity of being heard, communicate, in writing, the fact of such non-conformity to that body and direct it to take measures to rectify the same…’.
The government may further ‘…if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, after giving the online gaming self-regulatory body an opportunity of being heard, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or revoke the designation of such body…’ and may in the ‘…interest of the users of any online game that was verified by such body at the same time or at any subsequent time…’ further pass such interim directions ‘…as it may deem necessary to any intermediary or class of intermediaries regarding enabling its users to access such online game…’.
It seems that MeitY has (somewhat) attempted to ease the burden of compliance imposed under the Amendment Rules by allowing intermediaries time to comply with certain new obligations incorporated thereunder [in relation to ‘online games’ under rule 3 and 4 specifically, as elaborated in the second and third posts in our post series]. The Amendment Rules provide that such obligations ‘…shall not apply in relation to online games until the expiry of a period of three months from the date on which at least three online gaming self-regulatory bodies have been designated…’ by the government.
Notably, however, the government nevertheless holds the power (at its discretion) to pass a notification directing for the application of such obligations in relation to online games ‘…at any time before the expiry of the said period of three months…’. Further, the Amendment Rules provide that the government ‘…in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India or security of the State or friendly relations with foreign States or public order, or preventing user harm [i.e., any ‘effect which is detrimental to users…’].…’ may pass a notification (by giving reasons in writing) directing an intermediary to observe (in respect of an online game) – similar obligations as are contained under the Amendment Rules in respect of permissible online real money games; and further may ‘…specify the period within which the online gaming intermediary which enables access to such online game…’ must observe such obligations. It is clarified that where an online game is so notified, the provisions of the Amendment Rules applicable to permissible online real money games, will also apply in respect of such an online game.
In light of our analysis of the Amendment Rules (in the instant post as well as our preceding posts), it is quite clear that the Amendment Rules have imposed stringent requirements and standards upon online gaming and concerned intermediaries (and for all intermediaries as a whole) and also that such requirements significantly differ from the prior draft amendment previously circulated for public consultation by MeitY (back in January 2023).
The sudden release of the Amendment Rules has led to divergent feedback from the public – and invited both laudation and widespread concern concerning the over-reaching nature of the provisions therein (such as the high involvement of government supervision including in relation to the aspect of fact-checking proposed therein) – and in fact, the constitutionality of the Amendment Rules is already under challenge by various stakeholders. Our detailed insights in this regard as well as our comprehensive analysis of the Amendment Rules will be documented in our detailed consolidated article on the matter, which we’ll release shortly.
Comments
Post A Comment
Your email address will not be published *