Policy Paradox: MeitY under fire for blocking app that fights illegal betting platforms

In a development that is raising serious questions about regulatory coherence and policy execution, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has come under scrutiny for blocking a mobile application designed to help users quit gambling—while offshore betting platforms continue to aggressively target Indian consumers with little apparent restraint.

Gamban Ltd., a UK-based firm that offers a self-exclusion tool to prevent users from accessing gambling websites and apps. Founded in 2017, the company has formally petitioned the government to revoke the blocking order that has effectively rendered its application unavailable on both the Google Play Store and Apple App Store in India.

The move has baffled legal experts and policymakers alike, particularly given the government’s stated intent to curb the social harms associated with online betting. 

Industry observers point out that India’s evolving regulatory framework—including the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act—has repeatedly cited addiction, financial distress, and consumer harm as key concerns. Yet, in a striking contradiction, a tool specifically built to mitigate those harms has been caught in the regulatory crossfire.

A Tool Designed to Block, Not Enable

Gamban’s application operates as a digital firewall against gambling and betting platforms. It blocks access to more than 480,000 gambling domains and applications across devices. Available in nearly 200 countries, the app claims over 55,000 active users globally and has been endorsed by several addiction support organisations and regulatory bodies.

Crucially, the app does not host games, facilitate transactions, or monetise through advertising. Its sole function is preventative—helping users enforce personal restrictions against gambling activity.

That distinction makes MeitY’s decision particularly contentious.

Government’s Rationale Raises Eyebrows

In its communication to the company dated May 6, 2025, MeitY cited three primary concerns: potential risks to user data privacy, allegations that the app functions as a “super app” with access to sensitive browsing and financial data, and the possibility that users discontinuing the service could be exposed to increased gambling advertisements.

Gamban has strongly refuted MeitY's claims, asserting that its software neither accesses banking applications nor monetises user data. Legal experts tracking the case suggest that the ministry’s reasoning may struggle to withstand judicial scrutiny, particularly in the absence of publicly disclosed technical evidence.

Procedural Gaps Could Prove Costly

More troubling, however, are the procedural questions surrounding the blocking order itself.

Under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the government is empowered to block online content only on specific grounds, including national security, public order, or prevention of criminal incitement. According to Gamban, MeitY has not clarified which of these statutory grounds justified the blocking of a gambling self-exclusion tool.

Additionally, the company claims it was neither provided detailed reasons nor granted an opportunity to respond before the order was enforced—both of which are mandated under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

Legal observers note that such omissions could expose the government to a strong legal challenge. “If due process has not been followed, the order becomes vulnerable, regardless of the underlying intent,” said a technology policy expert familiar with Section 69A jurisprudence.

Queries sent to MeitY Secretary S. Krishnan remained unanswered at the time of publication.  

Policy Contradictions in Plain Sight

The episode underscores a broader inconsistency in India’s approach to online gaming and betting regulation.

Meanwhile, advertising for gambling and betting platforms continues to flood digital media, celebrity endorsements persist, and user acquisition campaigns show little sign of slowing down.

Against this backdrop, blocking an application that actively helps users disengage from gambling appears, at best, counterproductive—and at worst, emblematic of a regulatory framework struggling to distinguish between enablers of harm and tools for mitigation.

Legal Showdown Looms

Gamban has indicated that it will pursue legal remedies if the blocking order is not withdrawn. Given the alleged procedural lapses and the absence of clear statutory justification, a court battle could not only overturn the decision but also compel greater accountability in how digital content is regulated in India.

For now, the case stands as a stark reminder: in the race to regulate the digital economy, missteps can undermine not just policy objectives, but public trust itself.