#e4mExclusive:  UK anti-gambling app Gamban drags MeitY to Delhi HC

UK-based gambling harm-prevention company Gamban has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the Indian government's decision to block its website and mobile application, arguing that the platform was mistakenly classified as an online gambling app during the Centre's crackdown on offshore betting operators.

The writ petition, filed against the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), seeks quashing of the blocking orders issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, restoration of access to the platform in India and disclosure of the government's original blocking order, which the company says has never been shared despite repeated requests over more than three years.

The litigation could emerge as an important test of India's internet blocking framework, raising questions over procedural safeguards under Section 69A, transparency in content-blocking decisions and whether legitimate digital services can be inadvertently caught in sweeping enforcement drives against illegal betting platforms.

e4m had first reported about the incident.

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.

Unlike betting apps, Gamban blocks access to gambling websites and applications across devices, helping users struggling with gambling addiction prevent relapses. According to the company, its technology blocks access to more than 480,000 gambling websites and applications globally.

According to the petition, Gamban's website and applications on Google's Play Store and Apple's App Store became inaccessible in India when MeitY initiated a broader crackdown against online gambling platforms under powers available through Section 69A of the Information Technology Act.

The company alleges that it subsequently learnt that its application had been blocked alongside online gambling services despite not facilitating betting, gaming or wagering.

Instead, Gamban says its software functions as a digital self-exclusion tool by preventing users from accessing gambling, betting, casino and online money gaming platforms while also offering resources to support addiction recovery.

"The app does precisely the opposite of what the government believed it to do," the petition argues.

Gamban says it first contacted MeitY in May 2023, explaining that the application was not a gambling platform but software intended to block gambling content.

After receiving no response, the company submitted detailed representations in November 2024 and February 2025, reiterating that it neither hosted gambling content nor violated Indian law. It also requested an opportunity to present its case and sought a copy of the blocking order.

According to the petition, the ministry responded only in May 2025 through an email stating that the application had been blocked "after following due process." However, the company says no blocking order or detailed reasoning accompanied the communication.

The ministry's email cited three principal concerns: alleged user data privacy risks, the application's ability to function as a "super app" capable of monitoring browser activity and scanning other applications, and the possibility that users discontinuing subscriptions could subsequently receive gambling-related advertisements.

Gamban responded in April 2026 with another detailed representation addressing each allegation and informing the ministry that the application had undergone an independent information security audit and received ISO 27001:2022 certification.

In May this year, MeitY informed the company that its request for unblocking had been forwarded to the concerned nodal agency and that it would revert with an update. According to the petition, no further response has been received despite follow-up communications.

Alleged breach of due process

A significant part of Gamban's legal challenge focuses not on the government's power to block digital platforms but on how those powers were exercised.

The company argues that it was never issued a notice before the blocking order, was never granted an opportunity to be heard and has still not received a copy of the order despite repeatedly requesting it.

Its petition relies on the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 69A partly because the blocking regime incorporates procedural safeguards, including reasoned orders and an opportunity of hearing.

According to Gamban, those safeguards were not followed.

The petition further cites subsequent Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments to argue that blocking orders should ordinarily be made available to affected parties so they can effectively challenge executive action.

The company contends that merely stating that "due process" was followed does not satisfy statutory requirements if the affected party is neither informed of the reasons for blocking nor supplied with the underlying order.

Company disputes security allegations

Gamban has also rejected the substantive concerns cited by MeitY.

On allegations relating to user privacy, the company says the application complies with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), collects only limited operational information and processes most data locally on users' devices.

It also disputes the government's assertion that the software functions as a "super app" capable of monitoring banking applications.

According to the petition, the application merely uses Android accessibility permissions and browser heuristics to identify gambling domains and block them before they can be accessed. It denies scanning banking applications or collecting unrelated user information.

The company also contests MeitY's suggestion that users who discontinue subscriptions may subsequently receive increased gambling advertisements, arguing that the application neither shares user data with third parties nor uses advertising trackers capable of influencing online advertising behaviour.

The petition additionally questions the ministry's direction requiring the company to undergo a government-approved security audit before seeking restoration of access, arguing that neither the IT Act nor the Blocking Rules prescribe such a requirement.

Responsible gaming platform

Founded in the United Kingdom in 2017, Gamban describes itself as a digital harm-reduction platform rather than a gaming company.

According to the petition, the application is available across 197 countries and has recorded more than 600,000 registrations protecting over 800,000 devices worldwide.

The company says it has partnerships with government agencies and gambling regulators including Norway's state-owned Norsk Tipping, the Welsh Government, the Ohio Casino Control Commission and the Michigan Gaming Control Board.

The company argues that continued blocking in India has caused commercial and reputational damage while simultaneously denying Indian users access to a tool specifically designed to help them avoid illegal betting platforms.

Broader implications

The case arrives amid heightened regulatory scrutiny of online betting and gambling in India.

Over the past three years, the government has expanded enforcement against offshore betting operators through website and app blocking orders, advisories to internet intermediaries and action against platforms facilitating access to banned services. More recently, authorities have also directed VPN providers and digital intermediaries not to enable access to prohibited betting and prediction-market platforms.

Legal experts say the Gamban litigation could therefore have implications extending beyond a single application.

If the court examines whether procedural safeguards under Section 69A were adequately followed—and whether legitimate digital services were incorrectly categorised during broader enforcement exercises—the judgment could influence future challenges to government blocking orders and shape expectations around transparency, natural justice and accountability in India's digital regulatory framework.

For MeitY, the case also underscores the complexity of distinguishing between platforms that facilitate gambling and technologies designed to curb it as India continues tightening its oversight of the online gaming and betting ecosystem.

Gamban is represented by its legal team comprising of Advocates Jay Sayta, Akshat Gupta and Sakshi Tikmany.

The matter is expected to be heard before the Delhi High Court in the coming days.