India’s parliament has passed a bill targeting harmful online games played with money, raising concerns about the future of the country’s fantasy gaming sector.

The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill 2025, approved by both parliamentary houses, prohibits harmful online money gaming services, related ads, and financial transactions.

The Indian government cited financial and psychological risks as reasons for the move.

Industry executives warn the ban could lead to job losses and the shutdown of popular apps once the president signs the bill, which is considered a formality, though there is no set date.

India’s fantasy gaming sector was projected to reach US$3.6 billion by 2029, with investment from firms including Tiger Global and Peak XV Partners.

Popular platforms affected include Dream11, valued at US$8 billion, and Mobile Premier League, valued at US$2.5 billion, according to PitchBook.

Other gaming apps such as Zupee and Games24X7 are also likely to be impacted.

🔗 Source: Reuters

🧠 Food for thought

1️⃣ India shifts from fragmented state-level gaming rules to sweeping national ban

India’s new centralized gaming ban represents a dramatic policy reversal from years of state-by-state experimentation with online gaming regulation.

Previously, states like Sikkim pioneered online gaming laws in 2008, allowing 13 specific games including Poker, Roulette, and Blackjack with annual licenses costing one lakh rupees 2.

Nagaland followed in 2016 with legislation specifically allowing skill-based games, while the central government largely left regulation to individual states 2.

This approach created regulatory complexity, with the 1867 Public Gambling Act serving as the primary federal framework but excluding “games of mere skill” 3.

The new Online Gaming Bill 2025 marks the first centralized framework addressing online gaming nationwide, effectively ending this state-level regulatory experimentation 4.

The shift demonstrates how governments can move from accommodation to prohibition when concerns about financial fraud and social harm outweigh economic considerations.