A23 files first legal challenge against India’s online money games ban
text_fields
New Delhi: Online gaming firm A23 has moved the Karnataka High Court against the government’s recent ban on money-based online games, marking the first legal challenge to the new law that has abruptly halted popular contests and shaken the future of the fast-growing industry.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government introduced the ban last week, arguing that such games foster addiction and constitute “social evils.”
While gambling is already heavily restricted in India, the new law also targets games the industry maintains are based on skill rather than chance.
A23, which operates poker and rummy platforms, said in its August 28 filing that the legislation “criminalises the legitimate business of playing online games of skill, which would result in the closure of various gaming companies overnight.” The company further described the law as a “product of state paternalism” and asked the court to declare it unconstitutional when applied to skill-based games.
The legal filing has not been made public. India’s IT ministry has yet to respond to the challenge. A23.com says its platform has more than 70 million registered players, reported Reuters.
The move comes as a blow to an industry once projected to reach $3.6 billion in value by 2029, supported by major venture capital backers such as Tiger Global and Peak XV Partners. Popular platforms like Dream11 and Mobile Premier League (MPL), which host fantasy cricket and other contests, have already shut down their money-based offerings after the ban.
MPL has decided not to challenge the legislation and instead urged industry bodies to shift towards free-to-play models, a senior company source told Reuters. Dream11 has taken the same stance, with CEO Harsh Jain admitting in a TV interview this week that “95% of our group’s revenues have disappeared overnight.”
Dream11 said it intends to “build a great Indian sports company, driven by AI and the creator economy.” MPL did not respond to queries.
The government, in defending its decision, said it had a responsibility to curb harmful practices. When announcing the ban, officials stressed the need to act against “social evils.”