Open Access Research Article
THE REGULATION OF ONLINE GAMING ACROSS JURISDICTIONS: SUCCESS, STANDARDS AND STABILITY
Published Paper
Article Details
THE REGULATION OF ONLINE GAMING
ACROSS JURISDICTIONS: SUCCESS, STANDARDS AND STABILITY
|
Dr.S.Krishnan
Associate
Professor
Seedling School
of Law and Governance
Jaipur National
University, Jaipur
|
Mr. Abhishek
Poonia
Advocate
Rajasthan High
Court, Jaipur
|
Abstract
In 2005 the gaming market was worth an estimated six billion
dollars, half of that represented by online gambling revenues. However not all jurisdictions (countries) regulate
the industry the same. Some jurisdictions allow the industry to
flourish while some go as far as banning
the industry all together. The gaming
industry in India is growing exponentially, with the number of players and
platforms increasing every day. However, the industry is currently unregulated
and lacks the necessary legal frameworks to protect players and ensure fair
play. While the online gambling market continues
to grow globally, the wealth provided by it
has not been spread equally.
Introduction
In any discussion of the gambling industry
and its future prospects anywhere
in the world, the topic of online gambling always arises. Online gaming is happening across the
world, whether regional, national,
and state regulators and lawmakers like it or not. The amount of uncertainty that surrounds the size, scope, and often the legal basis
of online gaming make it hard to assess its current and future
impacts, or to plan strategies around it. While
some countries allow the industry to
flourish, some countries regulate the industry to the point of banning it all together.
A prime example of this can be seen when comparing countries such as
Malta and the United States. While Malta has adopted a “regulate rather
than ban approach,” the United States has
adopted the opposite approach. The
Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act) was
an act of Congress in the United
States covering port security
and to which an online gambling measure was added. The attachment to the Security and
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006
(SAFE Port Act) was the UIGEA, or Unlawful Internet Gambling
Act.
Essentially, the UIGEA seeks to cut off the flow of funds from U.S.
gamblers to e-casinos. To that end, it mainly targets two actors:
e-casinos and financial institutions. The interplay of sections 5363 and 5366 makes it a felony for a person (1)
engaged in the business of betting or wagering
to (2) knowingly accept money (3) in connection with unlawful gambling. The crime
is punishable by up to five years in prison. Furthermore, federal regulators are required to draft regulations designed to compel financial
institutions to identify and block restricted gambling transactions. Noncompliant financial
institutions are subject
to civil penalties (Alexander, 2008).
Although publicly traded gaming sites listed on the London Stock Exchange
and similar markets stopped
accepting funds from U.S. players,
most non-public sites announced their intent
to continue allowing U.S. based players. This
often leads to the question of whether or not
online poker is truly
illegal. As will be
discussed later, this is a controversial
topic. The UIGEA targets
financial institutions and overseas casinos.
The UIGEA language never explicitly states that playing online poker is illegal. Therefore, some online casinos still allow access to American
players.
This would be the norm for online casinos until April 15, 2011, when the
Department of Justice arrested
members of the three major casinos (Pokerstars, Fulltitlt, and Cereus)
on charges of money laundering and bank fraud. While some speculate that this will be the
end of online gaming in the United
States, this has not been the case. Many
legislators have been working on bills that would give states the right
to allow or disallow online gaming.
Another development is the U.S. Online Gaming Law 2011 convention. The convention took place on November 10th and 11th, 2011
and focused on legal and regulatory aspects of
online gaming in the United States. In
light of these events, we feel that the question of if the United States should regulate online
gaming is a waste of time. Rather, we
feel the question to research is how the United States
should regulate online gaming.
It seems as if the United States
is certainly moving in the direction of legalizing online gaming in the
United States. However, how they decide to regulate the industry
will be of great importance. By
looking at other jurisdictions I feel
the United States can create a valuable and sustainable industry.
Literature Review
I.
Internet
Regulation
The “four phases” development theory of internet regulation was developed
by John Palfrey. The four phases
of internet regulation are the "open internet" period, from the network's
birth through about
2000; "access
denied," through about
2005; "access controlled," through
the present day (2010); and "access contested," the phase into
which we are entering (Palfrey, 2010). During
the time of the open internet, the dominant theory was that the internet itself
was a separate space, often referred
to as cyberspace. Until 1990s, most states tended to regulate online activities very lightly if there
was even any regulation at all. When
states did in fact regulate online
activity, they treated them far different from activities in real space. Though the era of the "open internet," as a descriptive matter is
long past, there are important elements of the
theory that persist to the present day.
This theory is at the core of the openness initiatives championed and implemented by the Obama
administration (Noveck, 2009). In
December of 2009, President Obama issued the long-awaited Open Government Directive. The directive sets a schedule
for agencies to meet various goals related to access to information. The directive tells agencies to share information with the public through “online,
open, accessible, machine- readable
formats,” according to a White House press release. Agencies are to inventory
existing information and establish
time lines for publishing the inventories online (Ten Months After Pladge,
Obama Releases Openness Plan,
2010)
The second phase, which ran from 2000 to 2005, is known as the Access Denied period.
During this second era, states and others came to think of activities and
expression on the internet as things
that needed to be blocked or managed in various ways (Palfrey, 2010). Although it may seem that the world is
borderless when thinking from the perspective of cyberspace, it is clear that there are in fact well established
borders online. Through a collaborative research effort called the
OpenNet Initiative, the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto, the Berkman Center for internet and Society at Harvard
University, and the SecDev Group have together compared the internet filtering practices of a series of states in a systematic, methodologically rigorous fashion over the past eight years (The OpenNet Initiative, 2010).
Filtering across the world is done in many different ways. Some states implement a software application developed by one of
a small handful of United
States-based tech providers. Others rely less
heavily on technology solutions and more extensively on "soft
controls." Sometimes the filtering regime is supported
explicitly by the state's legal code; in other cases, the filtering regime is carried out through a national
security authority (Palfrey, 2010). Overall,
blocked content revolves around a
vast array of subjects. These can
include political views, religious beliefs, or social
values.
The third phase, from 2005 roughly to the present day, is the
"access controlled" phase. Palfrey
describes this as a period during which states have emphasized regulatory
approaches that function not only like
filters or blocks, but also as variable controls. The SAFE Port Act as well
as the UIGEA were implemented during this era and fit this model. The salient
feature of this phase is the notion
that there are a large series of mechanisms at a variety of points of control that can be used to limit access
to internet. (Palfrey, 2010). Countries
also use registration, licensing, and
identity requirements to control what people may do on the internet. To legally publish information online, one
needs to register themselves with the state as a publisher. Palfrey explains
that the first-order controls
associated with censorship are combined with legal controls and surveillance,
the effect of which is to ensure that those publishing online know
that they are being watched and that the state is capable of
shutting them down.
Currently, we are in a fourth phase called access contested. The key notion, as Palfrey explains, is that there is, and will be
more pushback against some of these regulations. These push backs are fueled by political
debate about the way in
which these regulations are carried
out by nations
around the world. These contests are also caused by the increasing centrality of online activities to life
in general. To internet users, online activities are
an increasing part of everyday
life, not a separate area to travel in occasionally. In summary, the controls and regulations
applied in earlier phases of the internet are starting to give rise to strong
responses from the private sector as
well as other countries unhappy with its regulation. In response to pressure from countries including
China and Vietnam,
companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo! have joined together with human rights groups and
academics to establish the Global Network
Initiative. The goal of this
organization is to help implement a code of conduct for handling such demands
in a manner than upholds civil liberties (Global
Network Initiative 2010). Although the UIGEA was first implemented
in the third phase, the fourth phase will be equally important to online gaming regulation. This is especially true after the actions taken by the United States Department of Justice on
April 15, 2011, where operators of three major casinos in the online
gaming world were arrested on charges of fraud and money
laundering.
Internet regulation has changed substantially from where it started in
the open net era described by Palfrey
(2010). The argument is no longer
whether or not the internet should be regulated,
but to what extent it should be regulated and how that regulation should be
executed. The early theorizing about
internet regulation centered on the extent to which states could, and would, regulate the activities of
individuals in cyberspace (Johnson & Post, 1996). Over a few decades,
the internet has gone from open net to a hotly contested environment. A great example of this can be seen in Egypt.
In the face of continuing political unrest, Egypt took the unprecedented step of severing all
internet connections while also shutting down all cell phone services.
Palfrey suggests that the question about internet regulation, looking
forward, needs to be inverted.
Instead of asking whether the internet can be regulated, the question should be whether it will be regulated in precisely
the same way, or more extensively, than the offline world as the stakes rise in
the access contested era (2010).
II.
Internet
Gaming Regulation (Overseas)
The question proposed by Palfrey can also be applied to the realm of
online gaming regulation. The question should not be whether it can
be regulated but how it should be regulated
compared to their offline brick and mortar counterparts. Eighty-five jurisdictions around the world
currently regulate some form of online gambling, but most such businesses are clustered in a
few places. These include Antigua,
Costa Rica, as well as Canada. These
nations as well as a few others
have legalized online gambling as an economic development strategy for attracting investment and jobs. Many anticipate that online gambling
businesses will be drawn more and
more to the United Kingdom as it implements its U.K. Gaming Act, which significantly liberalizes regulation of
online gambling (Stewart, 2006). Although
companies such as PartyGaming,
Ladbrokes, and Sportingbet are publicly traded on the London Stock Exchange, the vast majority of online
gambling companies are privately owned. At
least two companies holding licenses
in American jurisdictions have operated offshore internet gambling businesses that refused to accept bets
from the U.S. or any other country where online gambling is against the law. Both
MGM MIRAGE and Kerzner International operated those sites without objections from state regulators in the
U.S., although both companies closed their online gambling sites due to business reasons (Stewart, 2006).
Leading jurisdictions have created regulatory structures that in some
ways mirror the traditional regulation found for brick
and mortar casinos in the U.S. and throughout the world. Stewart suggests that although they vary
a little from each jurisdiction, they all share the following elements:
·
All require that gambling licensees and key employees
be “suitable,” or persons of “integrity,” or “fit and proper.” The completeness
of the background investigations for licensing may be subject to question;
some, for example, accept licensure in another jurisdiction as prima facie
evidence of suitability.
·
All require that players establish their
identification and residence. Again, the effectiveness of those requirements depends
on how they are applied, which cannot be evaluated from the regulations
themselves.
·
All require that the games be conducted fairly, and
many insist that the Web site’s gambling technology be approved by the
regulatory body or a designated testing facility. These requirements range from
quite specific to fairly open-ended.
·
On underage gambling, most online jurisdictions
establish a minimum gambling age of 18, though Alderney (an island in the
English Channel) accepts bets from anyone who has reached his own country’s
“age of majority”. Some online gambling sites may apply the assumption that any
holder of a major credit card is 18 years old, whether or not such an
assumption is valid.
·
On responsible gambling issues, several jurisdictions
require that online players be provided a mechanism to set their own loss or
betting limits, or limits on the deposits they can make into their online
gambling account. Similarly, regulations ordinarily require that a player be
permitted to exclude herself from gambling with the online business, though
such self-exclusions may be reversed quite easily. Some jurisdictions go beyond
current U.S. gambling regulation by promising to exclude a gambler from its Web
sites in response to a petition from a person other than the gambler who claims
a “close personal interest in the welfare of the gambler”.
·
Certain jurisdictions ban the extension of credit to
players, though others specifically authorize it.
·
All of the jurisdictions require some form of
anti-money laundering monitoring, which may take the form of restricting
customers to a single account with the online gambling business or identifying
and reporting suspicious transactions or changes in a player’s pattern of
transactions.
To gain further respectability and acceptance from consumers, some online
casinos have even formed a voluntary
standard setting organization. This
is known as “E-Commerce and Online
Gaming Regulation and Assurance,” or ECOGRA.
The organization helps to establish
minimum standards in areas
such as fair gaming, conduct, and consumer
protection.
III.
Internet
Gaming Regulation (United
States)
In 2005 approximately fifteen
to twenty million United States gamblers placed bets online.
The gaming market was worth an estimated six billion dollars, representing
half the world’s online gambling
revenues (Alexander, 2008). Despite
the official hostility of the federal government and most state
governments, internet gambling
among U.S. residents grew at a rate of more
than 20 percent a year (Stewart, 2006). Stewart
suggests that even though federal and state governments insist that online
gambling is illegal,
it is truly thriving. Stewart
provides a list
of consequences of this
contradiction between policy and reality:
·
Millions
of U.S. residents gamble online every day without the protection of reliable regulatory structures that ensure age and identity
verification, the integrity and
fairness of the games, or that responsible gambling features are included
on a site.
·
Neither federal
nor state governments receive tax revenues from online gambling.
·
Disrespect spreads
for laws that are
neither enforced nor evidently enforceable against an activity that enjoys wide and
growing popularity.
·
The online
gambling industry creates no jobs in the United States and American businesses earn no returns from
online gambling.
·
Current inconsistencies in U.S. internet gambling policy
could lead to sanctions by the World Trade
Organization (WTO).
Mentioned earlier was the question
of whether or not online gaming
is illegal. Although most states
declare that online gambling is in fact illegal, fewer than 25 people have ever
been prosecuted in the United States
for gambling (Rose I. N., 2006). Much
of the activity surrounding internet
gambling has focused
on the federal Wire Act, 18
U.S.C. § 1084, which was
adopted in the early 1960s to address telephone bookmaking and strictly
prohibited gambling over the “wires”
(Rose I. N., 2006). Both the Clinton and Bush
administrations have shared
the viewpoint that this act covers all forms of internet gambling.
However, it is interesting to note
that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit ruled that the language
only refers to “bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest” (5th Cir. 2002).
Alexander argues the UIGEA is arguably broad enough to encompass not just
game of chance but hybrid games such as poker as well. Where the
UIGEA is sometimes controversial is in
its broad phrasing of games of chance. Here
Alexander argues that even games requiring skill are subject to some degree of chance. In games like blackjack, draw, poker, and bridge, the outcome of any single hand is determined
substantially by chance, but the outcome of a series of repeat iterations seems not to be (Alexander, 2008). Therefore, it appears that even skill
games such as poker and blackjack may be covered by the Act’s
definition.
Although the DOJ has consistently stated that internet gambling violates
federal law, federal prosecutors
have not been very active in pursuing internet gambling offenses. The DOJ has declined time and time again to prosecute those placing illegal
bets online with gambling businesses. It can be argued that this is mainly to
avoid political and social backlash. It
is also important to note that
because all internet gambling businesses are located offshore, the current policy has also left the DOJ with few targets
for prosecutions.
This is not to say that all regulation in the United States concerning
internet gambling has been
prohibitive. In fact, the proposed Goodlatte
bill, H.R. 4777, would allow states to legalize intrastate internet gambling, and tribes to conduct internet
gambling entirely on tribal lands. The bill was introduced by Rep. Robert
Goodlatte in 2006 to amend title 18, U.S. tax code, to expand and modernize the prohibition
against interstate gambling
(Bill Summarry & Status 109th Congress, 2006).
However, the bill never made its way out
of the committee process. In his article written for the American Gaming Association (an
organization dedicated to legalizing online gambling
in the United States), Stewart (2006) offers a number of potential
benefits from this approach:
1. The state could protect its citizens
by requiring that online gambling businesses operate honestly according to that state’s
rules. State regulation would include social
protections, such as
enforcing standards against underage gambling, requiring mechanisms such as loss limits that gamblers could use to
control their gambling, and mandating the delivery of responsible gaming
information to online players.
2. The state could tax online gambling
revenues, creating an additional source of funding for public services. Although revenue projections are always
speculative, a small state with only
one percent of the nation’s population might expect to rise close to $20
million in taxes directly from
in-state online gambling, without considering additional revenues that would
flow from an increase in overall economic activity in the state.
3. In-state legalization would end the
widespread disrespect for the law fostered by the current mismatch between
policy and reality,
as millions of ordinary Americans gamble online on a daily basis
despite the official prohibitions against
such gambling.
4. A state could nurture a new industry
within its borders and stanch the flow of its citizens’ dollars to overseas businesses. By requiring that online
gambling businesses locate their operations in-state, the state could
create employment opportunities for its citizens.
India’s Online Gaming Industry Bets On Federal Level
Rules
India notified amendments to the Information Technology
(Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“Gaming
Rules”), on April 6, 2023. This is a key step to regulate online
gaming at a federal level in India.
There is bill of online gaming 2022 law that specifically governs
gaming or crimes related to online gaming. If we talk about the recent online
gaming bill 2022 it has some drawbacks as it does not make a distinction
between the game of skills and the game of chance it is only applicable to
online games which do not make the clearance between the applicability of the
act. So that the main drawback of the bill and the constitution of India gives
power to every state to establish their limits and set of rules regarding
gaming activities, thus various states have a set of rules also. The states
like Assam, Tamil N?du, Andhra Pradesh, etc have their sets of rules regarding
online gaming and gambling. Some states like Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have
made illegal online gaming and money gaming. Online gaming and money games are
banned in these two states. And other states like Sikkim and Nagaland there is
a requirement for a gaming license. There are two types of games in online
gaming first game of chance and the other game of skill. There should be proper
differentiation between the game of chance and skills under the act. That’s how
the condition of India regarding the online gaming and India is higher number
of scams and it is increasing day by day as everything has its pros and cons
just like that the online games gives the players and country another way to
increase economy and earn money but it is causing money laundering and other
type of crimes.
Currently, gaming is regulated by states, with different states
enacting their own state specific laws, most of which are dated and not
designed for online models of business. Consequently, there is inconsistency in
how different states view online skill based real money gaming, with some even
banning them, despite jurisprudence that such games should not be considered as
unlawful per se. This leads to business uncertainty especially since states
have divergent views on what’s allowed and what’s not, within their states.
Several petitions in different courts in India on such gaming related issues,
add to the chaos.
The Gaming Rules are in response to a long-standing industry demand
to have a centralised framework for regulating online skill based real money
games in India. With the notification of Gaming Rules, the online gaming
industry has come under the ambit of Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology (MEITY).
The journey, which officially started in January, 2023, when the
first draft of the proposed amendments to the Gaming Rules were released, has
seen its logical conclusion after rounds of stakeholder consultations and
feedback sessions organised by the government, before the notification of an
updated version of the Gaming Rules.
The Gaming Rules are focused on regulating online real money skill-based
games. They can be made applicable to free-to-play games under certain
circumstances (discussed below). Chance based games played for money or moneys’
worth, with an expectation of winning, are expressly not allowed under the
Indian law.
De-Coding the Gaming Rules
What’s a Game?
There are four key definitions relating to games, built into the
Gaming Rules.
Online Games, i.e. games which are either free-to-play, or are
Permissible Online Real Money Games (where there is a deposit made by a user
with an expectation of winnings on that deposit itself), can be offered as per
the Gaming Rules.
The term deposit has not been defined in the Gaming Rules. Since the
definition of online real money games says that the user has to make a deposit
with the expectation of winning on that deposit, it seems
that the intent is to cover stakes being placed in a game. The line may,
however, become thin if there are elements such as registration fee or
subscription charges for the game, and a part of such payments may be used for
playing the online game as well.
Indian Constitution has divided law making powers between various
states and the centre. Gambling is a subject that falls within the legislative
powers of various states of India. Most of the states in India have prohibited
gambling activities within the jurisdiction of their respective state. However,
tourism and revenue generation has forced many states to allow controlled
gambling in few states. These states are also required to safeguard the
interest of locals from the evil of gambling. This is the reason why most of
the states have now started either prohibiting the entry of the locals or
making the entry fees very high thereby making the casinos or gambling houses
available to rich only. Goa has been increasing the tariffs to deter the common
man from visiting them. Because of an increase in tariffs, there has been a
decrease in onshore casinos in the state. On the other hand, the Sikkim
government has brought out an official notification prohibiting residents of
the state from entering its two casinos to safeguard the interest of the local
people. So, the trend is going in the direction of tourism and revenue
generation by the states and restricting access to casinos for the locals.
As per the notification dated July 4, 2007, only persons having the
photo identity card or passport issued from outside the State of Sikkim will be
permitted entry into the Casinos. An amendment to the Sikkim Casino Games
(Control and Tax) Rules, 2007, has been made to accommodate this change. A
resident of Sikkim could challenge the state’s rule in court as violation of
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution that mandates that State shall not deny
to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within
the territory of India. But courts are favouring states when the restrictions
placed on residents regarding certain forms of entertainment or recreation have
been imposed in bonafide public interest. For instance, the Supreme Court had
upheld the Kerala government’s decision to curtail consumption of liquor in
bars and other public places in larger public interest. The apex court had
earlier also upheld bans on online lotteries in various states on the ground
that it ruined the lives of several families.
Indian population is very enthusiastic about sports and sports
related activities. Indian sports has got a boost in the form of online gaming
that has transformed physical sports into virtual sports, e-games, e-sports,
online games, fantasy sports, etc. As on date we have no dedicated online
gaming and online gambling laws in India. Similarly, we have no dedicated
fantasy sports law in India till now. This is in line with the exiting game
laws like online poker, online rummy, online lotteries, etc that are still not
governed by any dedicated Indian law. The result is inevitable i.e. online card
games in India are in limbo and legal troubles. Before discussing about
legality of fantasy sports it is pertinent to know a little about it. Briefly
speaking, a fantasy sport is an online game that involves selection of and
competition among virtual teams for points. These points can be redeemed in
multiple ways and money or cash is one of them. However, when cash for stakes
is involved, a fantasy game or sport is required to comply with additional
techno legal compliances. The present trends among fantasy sports stakeholders
in India is to apply the tests of traditional rummy to online poker, online
rummy and fantasy sports. However, this is a wrong approach. It is strongly
recommend that online poker, online rummy, online lotteries, fantasy sports,
etc require customised and separate treatment than simply applying the skills v
chance criteria. Even the central government and Supreme Court of India are
cautious about these issues and they have deliberately refrained from
commenting upon the legalities of online games in India. Without going into
much details, it is sufficient to say that relying solely upon skills v chance
criteria for running online poker, online rummy, fantasy sports, etc would be a
big mistake.
Recently the Indian government has clarified about the Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI) in E-Commerce Sector of India. As per the “Consolidated FDI
Policy Circular 2015” (FDI Policy), FDI is prohibited in lottery business
including Government/private lottery, online lotteries, etc and gambling and
betting including casinos etc. Recently the Crime Investigation Department
(CID) of the Andhra Pradesh police had sought a ban on the website of “Playwin”
which had allegedly been selling online lotteries banned in the state. As on
date, online gaming, online gambling and lotteries websites are not complying
with the internet intermediary compliances and cyber law due diligence
requirements prescribed under the Information Technology Act 2000. Similarly,
almost all of the online poker websites in India are violating one or other
laws of India. Although online gaming market in India is booming yet regulatory
compliances cannot be ignored. It seems online gaming and online gambling
industry of India is not considering regulations while conducting their
businesses in India.
Even the banks, payment gateways and online payment merchants, mobile
payment vendors, etc supporting these online poker, online rummy, online card games
and fantasy sports websites can be held liable for not following cyber law due
diligence norms as they have blindly approved online payment option to these
illegal and law breaking websites. These banks and payment gateways can also be
held liable for money laundering, FEMA violations and assisting in tax evasion.
If such banks, payment gateways and online payment merchants have already
approved such illegal and law breaking online poker, online rummy, online games
and fantasy sports websites in India, it is in their own interest to cancel
such approval immediately. The banks etc must ask them to first comply with
applicable techno legal compliances and then support their claims with a proper
techno legal consultancy and opinion from a reputed law firm.
In the past, Kerala refused permission to Future Gaming Solutions India
Private Ltd to sell Nagaland lotteries in the state. A social worker had
knocked judiciary’s doors praying for immediate ban on unauthorized and
alluring online lotteries. Promoted by other states within Maharashtra, he
contended that over 1,300 bogus online lotteries under various strange names
are operating here and ruining lives of millions. A division bench comprising
Justice Bhushan Gavai and Justice Swapna Joshi issued notices to central and
state governments seeking their reply in the matter.
What are
the Factors Facilitating the Online Gaming in India?
Gaming Industry & Digital
India: The gaming industry is developing rapidly and there’s a direct
correlation between the growth of the industry and the Digital India
initiatives that are recently conducted. Due to digitization people getting
access to Unified Payment Interface (UPI) so, it's not just an industry that is
about growing in terms of numbers of users, it's growing in terms of
monetization also.
Smartphone Penetration:
According to the World Economic Forum (WEF), mobile is the primary vehicle for
the gaming market in India. Most of the gaming is mobile-led, and as far as it
is observed that the result in an increase in the industry is due to smartphone
penetration. The use of smartphones has also risen with the advent of more
gaming-friendly handsets supported by faster processing capabilities.
Affordable Internet: Internet
access in India is very cheap as compared to the other countries which have led
to heavy internet use among users which is also a result of Digital India
initiatives. As per WEF, access to affordable smartphones has grown by 15%
year-on-year over the past five years. Besides, high-speed 4G internet
penetration supported by the world's lowest data tariffs has contributed
magnificently.
Opportunity for Employment:
The gaming industry is now being seen as an important pillar of the economy.
This upcoming sector could create lakhs of jobs in the country. Several gaming
startup firms are also expected to firm up hiring plans to support growth in
the next few years.
Need for
Regulating Gaming Industry
The online gaming industry within India has a lack of regulatory
oversight and falls into a ‘grey area’. India currently has no comprehensive
legislation with regards to the legality of online gaming or boundaries that
specify applicable tax rates within the betting and gambling industry. The
development comes when more and more states are bringing about legislation
seeking to bring about some order in the online gaming sector. Online gaming in
India is allowed in most parts of the country. However, different states have
their own legislation with regards to whether online gaming is permitted.
Well-regulated online gaming has its own advantages, such as economic growth
and additional benefits. However, shifting users to grey or illegal offshore
online gaming apps not only results in a loss of tax revenue for the State and
job opportunities for locals but results in users being unable to avail
remedies for any unfair behaviour or refusal to pay out winnings.
Conclusion
Undeniably, the need of the hour is either to update the central law or
come up with guiding principles in order to standardise the regulations
governing the gaming industry. The government is required to play an active
role in bringing uniformity in the laws governing the online gaming industry.
The government may also explore other solutions such as imposing restrictions
on gaming advertisements so that they do not target minors, limit the
deposits/losses and time spent on the gaming website or impose measures to
protect players. We hope the government to step in soon and bring uniformity
around gaming laws, considering the tremendous growth and investment in the
gaming industry.
As online gaming becomes more popular, it is likely that more countries
will look to regulate the activity. This could be in the form of licensing
requirements, taxation, or even bans on certain types of online gaming. The
global online gaming industry is expected to reach $196 billion by 2025,
according to a report by Grand View Research. With this growth, there is an
increasing need for statutes and regulations to govern online gaming. There are
many challenges when it comes to regulating online gaming. One challenge is the
cross-border nature of the industry.
Online gaming companies may be based in one country, but their players
may be located in another. This can make it difficult to enforce laws and
regulations. Online gaming has its adverse effects on society it gives any
player a fun time but can also cause serious damage related to money. There are
a lot of chances of money laundering and there is no clarity on that how to
protect the users from it as there is no specific law to protect any person in
the virtual world of gaming. It is a dilemma for the government to ban gaming
because apart from the dangerous side the gaming industry is providing a huge
amount of revenue to the country, if they ban gaming it will cause the interest
of players and developers as gaming is their way of earning money, fair way
apart from illegal activities it helps to generate revenue, but the gaming
industry considered to be a menace to the society. So, if we want to run both
things together to safeguard against money laundering and other financial
crimes one aspect of online gaming and the other is generating revenue for the
country then the prudent way to run is that there should be regulation to
regulate online gaming instead of a total ban. And such laws or regulations
will help the states also to run accordingly. An improved regulatory work will
provide job options to the people and it also helps the government in the
assistance. It will provide transparency to the stakeholders and the players.
Conclusion
The laws and rules governing online
gambling in India are still nebulous and unclear. Through
the issuance of legal provisions, the
judiciary has attempted to clarify and remove any
uncertainty regarding the laws governing
online gambling. However, given how quickly society
is advancing technologically, it is
challenging for the government to keep up with the new
opportunities that have emerged in the
world of online gambling. First, it is a laborious process
for people to educate themselves on the
subject before developing laws based on their
comprehension and interpretation. To
ensure safe and ethical gambling in India, the judiciary
would examine the legislation governing
online gambling in the future with care and diligence.
References
Alexander, G. (2008). The U.S. on
Tilt: Why the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is a Bad Bet.
Duke Law and Technology Review, 19.
Ayres, I., & Braithwaite, J.
(1995). Responsive Regulation:
Transcending the Deregulation Debate. USA:
Oxford University Press.
Bill Summarry & Status 109th
Congress. (2006, February 6). Retrieved April 19, 2011, from The Library of Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.R.4777:
Bowers, S. (2006, October 17).
Players Walk Away as U.S. Law Wipes Out 90% of PartyGaming's Revenue. The Guardian .
Castellas, M. (2000). Materials for
an Explanatory Theory of the Network Society. British Journal of Sociology , 10-11.
Deibert, R., &
Rohozinski, R. (2010). Beyond Denial: Introducing Next Generation Information Access Controls. Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power,
Rights, and Rule in Cyberspa
.
Holahan, C. (2006, October 19).
Online Gambling Goes Underground. Bloomberg
Business Week . Johnson, D. R.,
& Post, D. (1996). Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace. Stanford Law Review . May,
P. (2007). Regulatory Regimes
and Accountability . Regulation
and Governance , 18-26.
Noveck, B. (2009). Wiki Govemment: How Technology Gan Make Government
Better,Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful. Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution Press.
Palfrey, J. (2010).
Four Phases of Internet Regulation. Social Research
, 981-996.
Press, A. (2006, October
25). Experts: Online Gambling Ban Won't
Work. Retrieved February 20, 2011, from Foxnews:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,224839,00.html
Rose, I. N. (2006). Gambling and the
Law: An Introduction to the Law of Internet Gambling. UNLV Gaming Research
& Review Journal, 1-14.
Rose, N. I. (2008). Enforcing a Stupid Law. Gaming Law
Review and Economics.
Rose, N. I. (2009). New
UIGEA Regs Puts Benefits and Burdens on States. Gaming Law and Economic Review .
Sinclair, D. (1998). Self Regulation
Versus Command and Control? Beyond False Dichotomies. Law & Policy , 529-560.
Stewart, D. O. (2006). An Analysis of
Internet Gambling and its Policy Implications. American Gaming Association , 1-22.
Ten Months After Pledge, Obama Releases Openness Plan. (2010, January 22). Retrieved April
20, 2011, from Virginia Coalition
for open Government: http://www.opengovva.org/newsletter/january- 2010/1310-ten-months-after-pledge-obama-releases-openness-plan
US ONLINE GAMING LAW 2011. (2011, November 1). Retrieved November 9, 2011, from c5
online: http://www.c5-online.com/2012/637/us-online-gaming-law-2011
Wright, J. S., & Head,
B. (2009). Reconsidering Regulation and Governance Theory: A Learning
Approach.Law & Policy , 192-216.
Article Information
THE REGULATION OF ONLINE GAMING ACROSS JURISDICTIONS: SUCCESS, STANDARDS AND STABILITY
Authors: Dr.S.Krishnan, Mr. Abhishek Poonia
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/09/25
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.