On August 22, 2025, the President assented the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, (The Act) marking a significant legislative milestone in India’s digital governance landscape. The Act aims to strike a balance between fostering innovation in the online gaming sector and curbing the harmful effects of online money gaming. It reflects a comprehensive and forward-looking approach to regulating one of the fast-growing segments of the digital economy.

The Act comprises 20 Sections organized across 6 Chapters, each addressing specific aspects of regulation, enforcement, and definitions related to online gaming in India. It establishes a comprehensive national-level legal framework aimed at ensuring uniformity in the regulation and enforcement of online gaming laws across states, thereby resolving cross-border and inter-state inconsistencies. The Act applies to online gaming services offered within India, as well as those operated from outside India but accessible to users within the country.

The Act imposes a clear prohibition on “online money games” [Section 2(1)(g)], defined as any online game that involves monetary or equivalent stakes, regardless of whether it is skill-based or chance-based. In contrast, the Act encourages the development of “e-sports” [Section 2(1)(c)], which are characterized by two distinct features: (i) outcomes determined purely by skill, and (ii) the absence of any monetary or similar wagering.

The central government may either set up a new authority or assign these functions to an existing one, with powers to assess whether an online game qualifies as an online money game, and to recognise, categorise, and register online games. The government will define the authority’s structure and specify the terms and conditions for appointments.

The Act, however, sets out strict penalties for violations. Under Section 5, individuals who offer or participate in online money gaming services may face imprisonment of up to three years and/or a fine of up to INR 1 crore. Section 6 penalizes the advertisement of such services with imprisonment of up to two years and/or a fine of up to INR 50 lakh. Further, Section 7 criminalizes any financial transactions related to online money gaming services, carrying penalties of up to three years in prison and/or a fine of up to INR 1 crore.

Significantly, offences under Sections 5 and 7 are classified as cognizable and non-bailable under Section 10, granting authorities powers of arrest without warrant and limiting bail. The Act thus takes a firm stance against monetary wagering in online gaming, while supporting skill-based, non-wagering digital competition.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

The sheer volume of uploads and activity on social media platforms necessitates real-time action against infringers. To counter this, social media platforms employ methods like automatic takedowns for copyright violations. Pertinent concerns arise as to the misuse of such mechanisms to stifle critique or dissent by powerful entities. However, the author believes that automated copyright takedown mechanisms do not silence critique or dissent and are mere mechanisms for enforcing copyright in a rapidly moving digital space.

In digital spaces, enforcement mechanisms cannot compete with the velocity of traffic present. The general criticism that these takedowns are aimed at dissent or satire assumes that all instances of criticism are lawful. Exceptions such as fair use are a means of defence, a shield rather than enforceable rights. Thus, if a video or material being shared contains copyrighted material beyond the contours of fair use, the holder has the right to seek immediate removal. What, in general understanding, seems like suppression may actually be legitimate claims of copyright infringement. Further, these platforms provide redressal mechanisms, in the form of counter-notifications in case of invalid claims. To protect the rights of copyright holders in such a scenario, while imperfect, these mechanisms provide the only feasible solution.

Moreover, there is a growing ecosystem of checks and balances built into these systems. Most platforms now allow counter-notices, appeals, and in many cases, revenue-sharing options where original content and derivative critique coexist. The burden is not as high, and small creators have had increasing success challenging wrongful takedowns. To allege systemic misuse without engaging with available remedies dilutes the credibility of the free speech argument. To confuse copyright enforcement with censorship also ignores the realities faced by smaller creators and rights-holders. Creators like designers, independent filmmakers, and musicians rely on automated takedowns to guard against large-scale, commercial misuse of their work.

While misuse cannot be ruled out completely in any system, the digital reality demands a solution that can keep pace with its rapid evolution. Automatic enforcement is thus the complementary pair to wide-scale infringement. If we weaken these systems in the name of protecting critics, it would disproportionately harm the very creative economy that copyright law is meant to sustain.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

The Government of Kerala has released the Draft Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and Traditional Knowledge (TK) Policy of Kerala 2025 (“2025 Policy”), which seeks to reform the State’s Intellectual Property (IP) governance after 17 years. It modifies the 2008 policy framework by proposing key initiatives like “Mission IPR,” the establishment of an IPR Academy, and stronger measures for the protection and management of traditional knowledge.

A key objective of the 2025 Policy is to integrate IPR education across all levels of Kerala’s academic system, from schools to higher education, to raise awareness and promote careers in IPR. It proposes making IPR a mandatory subject and setting up a statutory IPR Academy for specialized training and awareness programs, including targeted training for police personnel. The policy mandates all research and educational institutions to establish IPR Cells and IP Management Committees. IPR Cells will promote a culture of creativity and guide on IP protection within institutions, while IP Management Committees will oversee the administration, licensing, and commercialization of IP assets. The policy ensures public institutions retain IP rights in externally funded research unless higher compensation is negotiated, with flexibility for centrally funded projects.

Complementing these initiatives is “Mission IPR,” an administrative mechanism providing technical, procedural, and non-financial support for promoting innovation, timely IP protection, and assistance with filings and litigation. It will also create databases to prevent misappropriation and conduct regular training programs to educate stakeholders on IPR laws and issues.

For Kerala’s Geographical Indications (GIs), the 2025 Policy aims to enhance their market impact and benefit producers by evaluating the socio-economic effects of GIs. It seeks to position GI products as premium goods with luxury appeal, ensuring they achieve positive price elasticity and better livelihoods for producers.

Another core aspect is the protection of TK, which is at risk of misappropriation in the era of globalization. Building on the success of the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL), the policy proposes the creation of a Traditional Knowledge Docketing System (TKDS), to document community-owned TK while respecting privacy and community rights. It also encourages the formation of Knowledge Societies or Trusts by TK holders to protect, research, and commercialize their knowledge, ensuring fair benefit sharing. Recognizing the limitations of traditional IPR for TK, the policy recommends a sui generis legal framework and the creation of the Kerala Traditional Knowledge Authority (KTKA) to oversee custodianship and legal action against misappropriation.

The 2008 policy primarily focused on preserving TK through community-based governance and awareness, emphasizing non-commercial use, and resisting commodification. Marking progression from the 2008 policy, the 2025 policy promotes a multifaceted approach with an emphasis on commercialization, innovation, and education in formal IPR systems, while still supporting community empowerment through tools like TKDS. The draft emphasizes upon integrating IPR education at all academic levels, fortifying geographical indication systems, while safeguarding Kerala’s rich traditional and indigenous knowledge base.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

Digital piracy remains a persistent challenge for copyright holders, and online platforms play a crucial role in tackling it. Currently, most platforms adopt a notice-and-takedown approach, acting only when a rights holder raises a complaint. This reactive model raises an important question: Should platforms be legally required to take preemptive action against piracy? While such a move could strengthen copyright protection, the author believes that it raises concerns about fairness, feasibility, and unintended consequences.

Supporters of stricter measures argue that digital platforms benefit from user-generated content and should take greater responsibility for preventing copyright violations. Large-scale automated tools, like YouTube’s Content ID, suggest that proactive filtering is achievable, at least to some extent. More stringent obligations could deter habitual piracy and provide a stronger safeguard for content creators. Furthermore, placing the entire burden of enforcement on rights holders is neither practical nor equitable, especially for smaller creators who lack the resources to police piracy themselves.

The author believes that requiring platforms to actively monitor content comes with significant downsides. Even the most sophisticated automated filters still get it wrong by mistaking lawful content like reviews, parodies, and educational material for piracy. This leads to frustrated creators, wrongful takedowns, and excessive censorship. Moreover, proactive monitoring would place a heavy financial and technical burden on smaller platforms, potentially driving them out of the market. If compliance becomes a game only deep-pocketed tech giants can play, smaller platforms do not stand a chance. The result? Less competition, fewer innovative voices, and an online space that becomes increasingly monopolized.

Then, there is the elephant in the room: the big corporations gaming the system. With the right legal muscle, copyright claims could become a convenient tool to silence critics, muzzle competition, and control the narrative. All in the name of ‘enforcement’. Faced with the threat of legal trouble, platforms are more likely to play it safe by blocking first and asking questions later. Before long, we are likely to see a system where lawful content gets swept up in the dragnet, and creators are left scrambling to fight wrongful takedowns.

While piracy is a legitimate issue, forcing platforms into an aggressive policing role may introduce more problems than it solves. The focus should be on accountability in enforcement, not mass surveillance of content.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP

The explosion of social media has made celebrities more visible than ever, with their images and personalities constantly in the spotlight. This increased exposure has also made them more vulnerable to unauthorized commercial exploitation, where their likeness is used without consent to promote products or mislead the public. In response, many celebrities seek broad injunctions to protect their personality rights. While these legal tools aim to prevent misuse, they also ignite a debate about their fairness and the impact on public expression. The author argues that while protection is necessary, overly broad injunctions, which prohibit using the likeness of a celebrity via any current or future mediums, are ultimately unjustified due to their chilling effect on free speech, more so when they are granted in ex-parte cases.

From one point of view, celebrities are at a greater risk of exploitation due to their high public profile. Their images are frequently misused for profit, often without their knowledge or approval, leading to both financial and reputational damage. Broad injunctions provide a safety net, giving celebrities the power to control how their persona is used. They also serve as a strong deterrent against anonymous online users who exploit the lack of accountability to misuse a celebrity’s image for personal gain. For many, these legal measures are essential to preserving the dignity and privacy of public figures.

However, it can also be argued that such injunctions can go too far, stifling free speech in the process. Public figures naturally invite scrutiny, criticism, and even satire—forms of expression that are integral to a healthy democracy. Broad injunctions risk silencing these voices, creating an atmosphere where even legitimate critique or humorous commentary becomes risky. This could discourage open dialogue and undermine the public’s ability to hold influential figures accountable. Additionally, such measures could set a dangerous precedent, where the boundaries of free speech are continually pushed back under the guise of protecting individual rights.

In conclusion, while celebrities have a legitimate interest in safeguarding their personality rights, the reach of broad injunctions must be carefully examined. These legal tools, though intended to protect the dignity and privacy of public figures, carry significant implications for the broader societal principles of expression and critique. By restricting the public’s ability to engage openly with influential figures, such injunctions risk creating an environment where legitimate discourse is stifled, and the space for humor, criticism, and accountability is diminished.

Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.

Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP