The final Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, 2026, notified on Wednesday and effective May 1, ease several compliance requirements flagged in last year’s consultation, even as the industry raised concerns over the absence of independent oversight and wide discretionary powers with the regulator. The framework adopts what MeitY Secretary S Krishnan described as a regulation-light approach, narrowing the scope of mandatory scrutiny while retaining government-led supervision through the Online Gaming Authority of India.
Most online social games will not require mandatory determination or registration with the Authority. Under Rule 8, such determination will be triggered only if the regulator initiates action on its own, when a provider seeks classification as an e-sport, or when the Centre notifies specific categories for review. This marks a shift from earlier proposals that envisaged broader oversight. Industry executives said the move reduces upfront compliance uncertainty, particularly for smaller studios experimenting with new formats.
Compliance Relief
A key change comes from the rollback of the draft Rule 17 provision on material change, which had drawn criticism for its expansive scope. The October 2025 draft required companies to notify the regulator of any change in game features or monetisation models, with firms warning that even minor tweaks could raise compliance costs by 20–30% for early-stage players. The final rules restrict such notifications to payment-related changes, including stakes, monetary winnings, and external monetisation of in-game assets. “This is a practical and much-needed correction. Limiting it to payment-related changes reduces notification fatigue and aligns regulatory focus with areas that directly impact user money and trust,” said Rohit Agarwal, founder and director of Alpha Zegus.
Registration validity has also been extended to 10 years from five earlier. “Renewal cycles carry real costs, including legal review, regulatory filings and internal audits, which fall disproportionately on smaller studios,” said Aniket Ghosh, partner at King Stubb & Kasiva.
Governance Gaps
Some concerns on governance remain. The Authority will be chaired by a MeitY additional secretary, with joint secretaries from multiple ministries as members, while the appellate authority rests with the MeitY secretary. This effectively keeps appeals within the same administrative structure. Jay Sayta, a technology and gaming lawyer, said the industry “will now be wary of being subjected to excessive regulatory and compliance burden at the whims and fancies of OGAI, which consists only of bureaucrats”. Manish Agarwal, board member at the Game Developer Association of India, pointed to the “absence of an independent appellate mechanism and the broad scope for rule-making through codes of practice,” noting that Rule 6 allows such codes across payments, data retention and user safety without a formal consultation process.
Industry executives, however, said the framework provides clearer segmentation between real-money gaming and video gaming-led formats. Rajan Navani, chairman of JetSynthesys and president of the Indian Digital Gaming Society, said the policy “creates a clear structural distinction between video gaming-led interactive entertainment and other formats,” improving predictability for long-term growth. Nitish Mittersain, Joint MD and CEO of Nazara Technologies, called the framework “a strong, forward-looking step,” while Anuj Tandon of BITKRAFT Ventures said it would support investor confidence.