Decoding the Online Gaming Rules, 2026

Beyond the Act: How the 2026 Rules Reshape Online Gaming Compliance

INTRODUCTION

The enactment of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (the ‘Act’) marked a significant shift in India’s regulatory approach to online gaming.

In an earlier blog post, I examined the Act in the context of the sector’s rapid expansion, driven largely by real-money gaming formats, and analysed the competing considerations of economic growth, investor confidence and user protection. That discussion focused on the Act’s prohibition-led framework, its departure from established jurisprudence distinguishing games of skill from games of chance, and the broader constitutional and commercial implications arising therefrom, including in light of decisions such as Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu and All India Gaming Federation v. State of Tamil Nadu.

The earlier analysis may be accessed here: The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 blog.

At that stage, any comprehensive evaluation of the regulatory framework remained incomplete. While the Act articulated the substantive prohibitions and policy direction, it did not set out the operational mechanics required for implementation, including compliance processes, enforcement procedures and institutional functioning.

The notification of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, 2026 (the “Rules”) addresses this gap.

The Rules, effective from May 1^st 2026, operationalise the legislative framework by prescribing the compliance architecture applicable to relevant stakeholders, including gaming operators, intermediaries and financial service providers. They also establish the procedural mechanisms through which the statutory prohibitions are to be enforced.

This note builds upon the earlier analysis and adopts a practice-oriented approach examining the Act and the Rules together to identify the key compliance obligations now in force, the enforcement risks that arise in practice, and the areas of interpretive uncertainty that stakeholders must consider when structuring and operating gaming offerings in India.

DEFINITIONS THAT MATTER

To understand the regulatory framework under the Act and the Rules, it becomes necessary to examine how key terms are defined and, more importantly, what they mean in practice.

The relevant definitions under the Act may be accessed here: The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 blog.

The definitions under the rules are;

1. Rule 2(h) of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, 2026 defines an “online game service provider” as any person who alone or jointly offers, operates, organises, manages or makes available one or more online games.
2. Rule 2(c) defines an “applicant” as any service provider seeking determination or registration of a game under the Act.
3. Rule 2(d) defines the “Authority” as the Online Gaming Authority of India established under Section 8 of the Act.
4. Rule 2(f) read with Rule 10 of the rules introduces the concept of a “determination order”, being the Authority’s decision on classification.
5. Rule 2(e) read with Rule 14(1) defines a “Certificate of Registration” as the registration granted to an e-sport or online social game.
6. Rule 2(g) defines a “grievance” as any complaint made by a user relating to the offering or availability of online social games or e-sports.
7. Rule 2(i) defines “user safety features” as technical, procedural and behavioural safeguards designed to protect users from financial, psychological, social and security-related risks. It is said to include safeguards such as age verification, time restrictions, parental controls and user awareness tools.

UNDERSTANDING THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK:

ONLINE GAMING AUTHORITY OF INDIA

A crucial aspect of the rules is the establishment of the Online Gaming Authority of India, headquartered in New Delhi, as the central administrative body responsible for operationalising the Act.

From a practical standpoint, stakeholders should view the Authority not merely as a supervisory regulator, but as the primary interface for compliance, classification and enforcement under the framework.

While I will to examine its composition or enumerate its powers in detail, two features are immediately significant.

First, the Authority functions as the nodal decision-maker for determination and registration, including maintaining public records of classified games and identifying online money games.

Secondly, it is vested with wide regulatory and supervisory levers, ranging from issuing directions affecting game design, financial flows and advertisements, to prescribing codes of practice, user safety standards, and compliance reporting requirements.

It also operates as a grievance and quasi-adjudicatory forum, with the ability to inquire into complaints and intervene in disputes, alongside coordinating with financial institutions and enforcement agencies.

Importantly, its decisions are not final in all cases, as an appeal lies to the Appellate Authority, being the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, within a prescribed thirty-day window, with a corresponding expectation of expeditious disposal, ideally 30 days again.

It would also be pertinent to note that the Authority and the Appellate Authority when conducting their tasks which are enumerated are vested with the powers under Rule 24 to summon and examine any person as required to adjudicate. Further, they may also inspect any data, book, document, register, books of account or any other document.

THE REGISTRATION REGIME

Rule 12(1) states that it is not mandated that all online games are registered with the authority except as under;

• risk of harm to users, including children;
• potential injury or adverse public impact;
• scale of user participation;
• nature, volume or value of financial transactions or authorisation of funds;
• country of origin or location of the service provider; and
• any other factor relevant in public interest.

Additionally, if after the process of determination as under Rule 8 the authority forms the view that a game requires registration having regard to the factors under Rule 12(1)(a), it may require such registration.

Further, rule 12(1)(b) provides that registration is required where the online game is intended to be offered as an e-sport as under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025. Whereas, it is expressly stated under Rule 12(3) that an online money game shall not be eligible for recognition or registration as an e-sport under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025.

It is pertinent to note that as under Rule 12(4), each online game provided by must be registered registration is specific to each online game offered by a service provider.

Registration is to be made by an application to the authority in accordance in accordance with the requisites imposed by Rule 23 and they are as follows;

• The identity, name and contact details of the applicant;
• Details of any registration, licence or authorisation held under applicable law;
• A description of the online game and its category;
• The proposed classification of the game for the purposes of Proceedings;
• The targeted or intended user age group;
• The revenue model of the game;
• The user safety features implemented;
• Details of the internal grievance redressal mechanism;
• An undertaking confirming the accuracy of the information provided; and
• Any additional information as may be required by the Authority.

Through Rule 14(2) it can be inferred the certificate of registration is valid for a period of 10 years.

While the authority is vested with the powers to revoke the certificate of registration, the same cannot be suspended or cancelled without giving the online game service provider an opportunity of being heard as stated under Rule 14(3).

The Rules also specify the grounds on which such suspension or cancellation may be undertaken and they are as follows;

• Where the online game has been modified in a manner that it may now qualify as an online money game;
• Repeated non-compliance with directions, orders, codes of practice or guidelines issued under the Act or the National Sports Governance Act, 2025;
• In the case of e-sports, expiry or withdrawal of recognition under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025;
• Submission of false or incorrect information at the stage of determination or registration;
• Failure to pay penalties imposed under the Act;
• violation of the provisions of the Act, the Rules, or any other applicable law.

Rule 14(4) permits an online game service provider to voluntarily surrender a Certificate of Registration by making an application to the Authority in the prescribed digital form. However, Rule 14(5) clarifies that such surrender does not extinguish any liabilities, obligations or proceedings that arose prior to the date of acceptance of the surrender.

THE REGULATORY TRIPARTE

Section 2(f) of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 defines an ‘online game’ as any game played on an electronic or digital device and operated as software through the internet or any other technology facilitating electronic communication.

The Rules do not alter the statutory definition under the act but rather, it establishes the mechanism through which an online game is examined, classified and regulated in practice.

Read together, Rule 8, 9 and 10 construct a three-stage architecture comprising threshold triggers, evaluative criteria, and adjudicatory procedure for online games.

RULE 8;

Rule 8(1) makes it clear that not all online games need to be determined but is only required to be done in one of the following three circumstances;

• Under Rule 8(1)(a), if the Authority established, suo motu directs a service provider to submit a game for determination;
• Under Rule 8(1)(b), when the service provider seeks to classify a game as an e-sport; or  
• Under Rule 8(1)(c), where the Central Government mandates the determination for a notified category of online social games based on volume or value of financial transactions or authorisation of funds permitted for participating in or accessing such online social game.

Rule 8(2) provides that where an online game is required to be determined under clauses (b) and (c) of Rule 8(1), the online game service provider must submit an application to the Authority in the prescribed digital form containing the particulars as mentioned in Rule 23 (the same has been stated under the header: Registration Regime)

RULE 9;

Once brought within the determination process under Rule 8, Rule 9 tells operators what the Authority is looking for in substance, irrespective of how the game is labelled or structured on paper. This is primarily based on factors examining whether users stake money and whether there is an anticipation of monetary or equivalent gain.

The aforesaid factors are inferred from Rule 9(a) and Rule 9(b).

Rule 9 (c) draws a clear distinction between three categories.

• Payments that are intrinsically linked to legitimate competitive structures, such as registration or participation fees for multiplayer contests governed by predefined rules, or amounts used to defray administrative costs and fund performance-based prize pools.
• Payments that operate purely as consideration for access, in the nature of subscription or one-time entry fees, without any staking element.
• Payments that assume the character of a stake, namely amounts risked in the expectation of monetary or equivalent gain, including winnings derived from such staking. 

The clause thus functions as a classification tool that separates bona fide fee-based or competitive gaming models from those that, in substance, replicate wagering or betting mechanics, irrespective of how such payments are described.

Rule 9 (d) requires the authority to interrogate the revenue model in substance, including how the operator generates income, whether revenues are linked to user losses or staking behaviour, and the extent to which monetisation depends on continuous financial participation.

Whereas, Rule 9(e) requires the authority to examine the life cycle and liquidity of in-game value, focusing on whether rewards, benefits or virtual assets can be transferred, redeemed for real-world value, monetised, or otherwise utilised outside the closed game environment.

RULE 10;

Rule 10 operationalises the determination process and translates the substantive risk assessment under Rule 9 into a structured, time-bound adjudicatory process, while simultaneously shaping how operators must engage with the regulator in practice.

Rule 10(1)(a) governs the instance whereby proceedings are initiated suo motu by the authority.

It is mandated that the authority first issue a written notice articulating the grounds for which it seeks to the make the determination.

Subsequently, it empowers the authority to seek information, and provide an opportunity to respond along with necessary documentation.

Rule 10(1)(b) governs the instance whereby determination is undertaken upon receipt of an application made under Rule 8(2) along with the requirements as mentioned above.

It states that in the instance whereby the authority feels that the information provided in inadequate or requires any additional information as required to scrutinise applications for completeness. However, the same must be substantiated with adequate reasoning.

Additionally, Rule 10(1)(c) and Rule 10(1)(d) empowers the authority to examine the technical architecture, gameplay mechanics, revenue model, user interface and such other details of the online game, as the case may be and as needed while also allowing them seek expert or technical evaluation respectively.

The outcomes under Rule 10(2) are binary. If the game is indeed an online money game, then, a determination conveying the same is made. However, if the finding that it is not an online money game leads either to further processing for e-sport recognition as given under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025. or to a formal determination order in the case of online social games, coupled with ongoing disclosure obligations regarding payment-related changes. Importantly, determinations are game-specific and provider-specific, preventing automatic transposition across similar offerings.

Finally, Rule 10(3) states that the authority is given a ninety-day timeline to make its determination. However, the period the time taken to obtain any additional information or when suo moto proceedings are initiated shall be excluded from the 90-day window.

COMPLIANCE OBLIGATIONS

Beyond determination and registration, the Rules impose continuing obligations on online game service providers and associated entities. These obligations are framed through delegated directions, guidelines and codes of practice issued by the Authority under Section 8(3) of the Act.

The following are the compliance obligations mandated by the rules;

• Designation of Point of Contact: Rule 16 requires every online game service provider to designate a point of contact in accordance with directions, orders, guidelines or codes of practice issued under Section 8(3) of the Act.
• Data Retention Obligations: Rule 17 mandates that every online game service provider must comply with directions relating to the retention and storage of data, including traffic data, metadata and other related information. Further, such data is required to be stored on computer resources located in India and all other data laws shall also apply.
• Grievance Redressal Mechanism: Rule 20 mandates every online game service provider to establish and maintain a functional grievance redressal mechanism for addressing user complaints. It further empowers a user who has not been provided with any resolution or is dissatisfied with the resolution of a grievance, to approach the Authority with the authority mandated to dispose off the appeal within 30 days of receipt.  Subsequently, any user aggrieved by the decision of the Authority may file an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTY FRAMEWORK

The Rules prescribe a structured procedure for inquiry and imposition of penalties under Section 12 of the Act. This framework governs how non-compliance is investigated, adjudicated and penalised by the Authority.

INQUIRY STAGE:

Rule 21(1)  states that the Authority may initiate proceedings upon receipt of a complaint or suo motu by issuing a notice to the online game service provider.

It would be pertinent to note that such a notice should set out the particulars of the alleged non-compliance and be accompanied by relevant documents. Proceedings are to be conducted in digital mode, unless physical presence is considered necessary.

Further, Rule 21(2) requires the Authority to explain the alleged contravention to the noticee. Where the service provider admits to the non-compliance, the Authority may record such admission and proceed to impose penalty. Alternatively, the Authority may direct the service provider to show cause as to why an inquiry should not be conducted.

In the instance whereby a service provider fails to appear, the authority is vested with the power to proceed ex parte through Rule 21(4).

While the Authority to hear and decide complaints within ninety days from receipt, they are also empowered to conduct direct investigation through authorised officers, either suo motu or upon receipt of a complaint or report from a Government agency as under Rule 21(5).

DETERMINATION AND PENALTY

Reading Rule 21(7), it may be inferred that in the instance whereby the Authority is satisfied that non-compliance has occurred, it may, by written order:

• Impose penalties in accordance with the Act;
• Suspend or cancel the Certificate of Registration; or
• Prohibit the service provider from offering, facilitating or promoting the relevant online game for a specified period.

Rule 21(8) states that the following factors must be taken into account when adjudicating the penalty;

• The extent of unfair gain derived from non-compliance;
• Loss caused to users;
• Recurrence of the violation;
• Gravity and duration of the non-compliance;
• Number of users affected;
• Mitigation efforts undertaken;
• Proportionality and effectiveness of the penalty; and
• Any other relevant considerations.

It is pertinent to note that in accordance with Rule 22, the collected penalty under the Act shall be credited to the Consolidated Fund of India.

Making a reference to Section 9 of the Act, which was previously discussed in my earlier analysis: The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 blog, The following are the offences and corresponding penalties.

• Section 9(1) of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 provides that any person offering an online money gaming service in contravention of Section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or a fine up to ₹1 crore, or both.
• Section 9(2) provides that any person advertising an online money game in contravention of Section 6 shall be punishable with imprisonment up to two years, or a fine up to ₹50 lakh, or both.
• Section 9(3) provides that any person facilitating financial transactions or authorisation of funds in contravention of Section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or a fine up to ₹1 crore, or both.
• Section 9(4) provides enhanced penalties for repeat offences under Sections 5 and 7, including imprisonment between three to five years and fines between ₹1 crore and ₹2 crore.
• Section 9(5) provides enhanced penalties for repeat offences relating to advertising under Section 6, including imprisonment between two to three years and fines between ₹50 lakh and ₹1 crore. 

CONCLUSION

The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, 2026 complete the shift from a policy framework to an operational regulatory regime. Read with the Act, they materially shape how online gaming businesses must be structured, assessed and sustained in India.

The Online Gaming Authority of India emerges as the central regulatory interface with wide supervisory and enforcement powers. Its role extends beyond entry regulation to ongoing oversight through directions, codes of practice and compliance requirements.

For stakeholders, compliance is continuous and must be embedded into product design, financial flows and user systems. Enforcement exposure, including financial and criminal consequences, requires robust internal controls.

PROMOTION AND REGULATION OF ONLINE GAMING RULES, 2026 — COMPLIANCE QUICK REFERENCE

Effective: 1 May 2026
Read with: Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025

---

1. Key Definitions

Term	Rule	Practical Meaning
Online game service provider	Rule 2(h)	Entity offering or operating online games
Applicant	Rule 2(c)	Provider seeking determination or registration
Authority (OGAI)	Rule 2(d)	Central regulator for classification and enforcement
Determination order	Rule 2(f) r/w Rule 10	Binding classification decision
Certificate of Registration	Rule 2(e) r/w Rule 14(1)	Approval for eligible games (10 years)
Grievance	Rule 2(g)	User complaint regarding game offering
User safety features	Rule 2(i)	Safeguards such as age checks and limits

2. Determination Triggers

Trigger	Rule	Requirement
Suo motu action	Rule 8(1)(a)	Mandatory determination
E-sport classification	Rule 8(1)(b)	Application required
Government notification	Rule 8(1)(c)	Mandatory determination

3. Determination Test

Factor	Rule	Focus
Staking	Rule 9(a)-(b)	Whether money is risked for gain
Payment structure	Rule 9(c)	Fee vs stake vs wagering
Revenue model	Rule 9(d)	Dependence on user losses
Value extraction	Rule 9(e)	Convertibility of rewards

4. Registration

Requirement	Rule	Details
Game-specific registration	Rule 12(4)	Each game separately registered
Mandatory cases	Rule 12(1)	Risk/public interest factors
Validity	Rule 14(2)	10 years
Revocation	Rule 14(3)	Non-compliance, false info, etc.

5. Core Compliance Obligations

Obligation	Rule	Requirement
Point of Contact	Rule 16	Mandatory designation
Data retention	Rule 17	Store data in India
Grievance mechanism	Rule 20	Internal system + escalation

6. Enforcement and Penalties

Offence	Provision	Penalty
Illegal online money gaming	Section 9(1)	Up to 3 years / ₹1 crore / both
Illegal advertising	Section 9(2)	Up to 2 years / ₹50 lakh / both
Illegal financial facilitation	Section 9(3)	Up to 3 years / ₹1 crore / both
Repeat offences	Section 9(4)-(5)	Higher imprisonment and fines