#FactCheck - Digitally Manipulated Video Misrepresents Surinder Choudhary’s Remarks on PM Modi

‍Introduction 

The enactment of the Online Gaming (Promotion and Regulation) Act, 2025 has a significant impact, resulting in considerable changes to the structure of the Indian gaming industry. The ban on Real-Money Games (RMG), including fantasy sports, rummy, and poker, aims to curb addiction, illegal betting and most importantly, financial exploitation.

However, this decision sent ripples throughout the industry, resulting in players, companies and their investors re-strategising their plans to move forward. This approach, however, is a sharp contrast to how other nations, including the UK, Singapore and others, regulate online gaming. This, as a result, has also raised doubts about the ban and calls into question whether this is the right move.

‍

Industry in Flux - The resultant Fallout

‍

• MPL’s Layoffs: The Mobile Premiere League has so far laid off nearly 60 per cent of its workforce, with the CEO of the company openly admitting that the company is no longer able to make money in India.
• Dream11’s Lost Revenue: Having seen a position of being a market leader, the company has now witnessed its 95 per cent revenue wiped out, resulting in raised alarms among investors.
• A23’s Legal Move: The company chose to move the Karnataka High Court under the argument that the ban also ends up unfairly criminalising skill-based games that were earlier classified differently from gambling by the courts.

‍

The new face of eSports: With RMGs outlawed, the focus is now on esports, including casual mobile gaming, console/PC gaming, and creating new opportunities and also leaving a void for RMG revenue companies.

‍

Regulations Around the World - & India

‍

India has adopted a prohibition model, whereas many other countries have developed regulatory frameworks that allow sectoral expansion under monitoring.

‍

United Kingdom:

• Online gaming is regulated by the UK Gambling Commission.
• RMGs are legal but subject to strict licensing, age verification and advertising rules.
• Self-exclusion schemes are a must, offered by operators along with tools to prevent gambling addictions.

‍

United States

• State-driven regulations that vary from state to state.
• States including Nevada and New Jersey allow casinos both online and offline, while other states prohibit them completely.
• Regulation for skill-based fantasy games is fragmented but generally legal.

‍

China

• Great focus on controlling and restricting gaming addictions among minors.
• Time limits are enforced for players under 18 (usually as little as 3 hours per week).
• Gambling has been deemed illegal; however, esports and casual gaming operate within China’s regulated gaming ecosystem, subject to certain compliance.

‍

Singapore

• The Remote Gambling Act regulates chance-based games, while other eSports and skill-based games operate out of its jurisdiction and are regulated separately.
• Online gambling isn't completely banned, but is operated under restrictions.
• Only Licensed operators under strict controls are allowed by the government to operate to avoid and prevent black-market alternatives.

‍

Australia

• Regulates under the Interactive Gambling Act.
• Sports betting and certain licensed operators are allowed, while most of the other online gambling services are prohibited.
• Restrictions on advertising and real-time interventions allow emphasis on harm minimisation.

‍

India’s Approach  - Comparison

The Online Gaming (Promotion and Regulation) Act, 2025 introduces a prohibition model for real money games. This differs from jurisdictions such as the UK and US, which have implemented regulatory frameworks to oversee the sector. In India, earlier legal interpretations distinguished between games of skill and games of chance. The new legislation provides a single treatment for both categories, which marks a departure from previous judicial pronouncements. 

‍

Conclusion

At present, India’s gaming sector is navigating layoffs, court cases, and a pivot towards esports post the RMG ban. Keeping in mind that the intent of said ban is the protection of citizens, the industry also argues that regulation, instead of prohibition, offers a sustainable approach to the issues. On the other hand, on the global scale, most nations prefer controlled and licensed models that ensure consumer safety and work on preserving both jobs and revenues. However, India’s step is diverging from such a model. The lack of safeguards and engagement in the real money gaming industry led to a prohibition model, underscoring that in sensitive digital sectors, early regulatory alignment is essential.

‍

References

• India online gaming ban: Global rules & regulation bill 2025
• Level up or game over? Decoding India’s gaming industry post RMG ban
• MPL lays off 350 employees after GST rules, RMG crackdown
• India’s Dream11 hit by online gaming ban, revenue slumps
• Online gaming ban: A23 moves Karnataka HC against government decision
• UK Gambling Commission – Licensing and Regulations
• Fantasy Sports & Gambling Law – State by State
• China’s gaming restrictions for minors
• Singapore Remote Gambling Act – Ministry of Home Affairs
• Australian Communications and Media Authority – Interactive Gambling Act
  
  

‍

Introduction

Misinformation and disinformation are significant issues in today's digital age. The challenge is not limited to any one sector or industry, and has been seen to affect everyone that deals with data of any sort. In recent times, we have seen a rise in misinformation about all manner of subjects, from product and corporate misinformation to manipulated content about regulatory or policy developments.  

Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) play an important role in economies, particularly in developing nations, by promoting employment, innovation, and growth. However, in the evolving digital landscape, they also confront tremendous hurdles, such as the dissemination of mis/disinformation which may harm reputations, disrupt businesses, and reduce consumer trust. MSMEs are particularly susceptible since they have minimal resources at their disposal and cannot afford to invest in the kind of talent, technology and training that is needed for a business to be able to protect itself in today’s digital-first ecosystem. Mis/disinformation for MSMEs can arise from internal communications, supply chain partners, social media, competitors, etc. To address these dangers, MSMEs must take proactive steps such as adopting frameworks to counter misinformation and prioritising best practices like digital literacy and training, monitoring and social listening, transparency protocols and robust communication practices.

Assessing the Impact of Misinformation on MSMEs

To assess the impact of misinformation on MSMEs, it is essential to get a full sense of the challenges. To begin with, one must consider the categories of damage which can include financial loss, reputational damage, operational damages, and regulatory noncompliance. Various assessment methodologies can be used to analyze the impact of misinformation, including surveys, interviews, case studies, social media and news data analysis, and risk analysis practices.

Policy Framework and Gaps in Addressing Misinformation

The Digital India Initiative, a flagship program of the Government of India, aims to transform India into a digitally empowered society and knowledge economy. The Information Technology Act, 2000 and the rules made therein govern the technology space and serve as the legal framework for cyber security and data protection. The Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 also contains provisions regarding ‘fake news’. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is a brand new law aimed at protecting personal data. Fact-check units (FCUs) are government and private independent bodies that verify claims about government policies, regulations, announcements, and measures. However, these policy measures are not sector-specific and lack specific guidelines, which have limited impact on their awareness initiatives on misinformation and insufficient support structure for MSMEs to verify information and protect themselves.

Recommendations for Countering Misinformation in the MSME Sector

To counter misinformation for MSMEs, recommendations include creating a dedicated Misinformation Helpline, promoting awareness campaigns, creating regulatory support and guidelines, and collaborating with tech platforms and expert organisations for the identification and curbing of misinformation. 

Organisational recommendations include the Information Verification Protocols for the consumers of Information for the verification of critical information before acting upon it, engaging in employee training for regular training on the identification and management of misinformation, creating a crisis management plan to deal with misinformation crisis, form collaboration networks with other MSMEs to share verified information and best practices. 

Engage with technological solutions like AI and ML tools for the detection and flagging of potential misinformation along with fact-checking tools and engaging with cyber security measures to prevent misinformation via digital channels.

Conclusion: Developing a Vulnerability Assessment Framework for MSMEs

Creating a vulnerability assessment framework for misinformation in Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in India involves several key components which include the understanding of the sources and types of misinformation, assessing the impact on MSMEs, identifying the current policies and gaps, and providing actionable recommendations. The implementation strategy for policies to counter misinformation in the MSME sector can be by starting with pilot programs in key MSME clusters, and stakeholder engagement by involving industry associations, tech companies and government bodies. Initiating a feedback mechanism for constant improvement of the framework and finally, developing a plan to scale successful initiatives across the country.

References

• https://publications.ut-capitole.fr/id/eprint/48849/1/wp_tse_1516.pdf 
• https://techinformed.com/how-misinformation-can-impact-businesses/ 
• https://pib.gov.in/aboutfactchecke.aspx 

‍

Introduction

In 2022, Oxfam’s India Inequality report revealed the worsening digital divide, highlighting that only 38% of households in the country are digitally literate. Further, only 31% of the rural population uses the internet, as compared to 67% of the urban population. Over time, with the increasing awareness about the importance of digital privacy globally, the definition of digital divide has translated into a digital privacy divide, whereby different levels of privacy are afforded to different sections of society. This further promotes social inequalities and impedes access to fundamental rights.

Digital Privacy Divide: A by-product of the digital divide

The digital divide has evolved into a multi-level issue from its earlier interpretations; level I implies the lack of physical access to technologies, level II refers to the lack of digital literacy and skills and recently, level III relates to the impacts of digital access. Digital Privacy Divide (DPD) refers to the various gaps in digital privacy protection provided to users based on their socio-demographic patterns. It forms a subset of the digital divide, which involves uneven distribution, access and usage of information and communication technology (ICTs). Typically, DPD exists when ICT users receive distinct levels of digital privacy protection. As such, it forms a part of the conversation on digital inequality. 

Contrary to popular perceptions, DPD, which is based on notions of privacy, is not always based on ideas of  individualism and collectivism and may constitute internal and external factors at the national level. A study on the impacts of DPD conducted in the U.S., India, Bangladesh and Germany highlighted that respondents in Germany and Bangladesh expressed more concerns about their privacy compared to respondents in the U.S. and India. This suggests that despite the U.S. having a strong tradition of individualistic rights, that is reflected in internal regulatory frameworks such as the Fourth Amendment, the topic of data privacy has not garnered enough interest from the population. Most individuals consider forgoing the right to privacy as a necessary evil to access many services, and schemes and to stay abreast with technological advances. Research shows that 62%- 63% of Americans believe that companies and the government collecting data have become an inescapable necessary evil in modern life. Additionally, 81% believe that they have very little control over what data companies collect and about 81% of Americans believe that the risk of data collection outweighs the benefits. Similarly, in Japan, data privacy is thought to be an adopted concept emerging from international pressure to regulate, rather than as an ascribed right, since collectivism and collective decision-making are more valued in Japan, positioning the concept of privacy as subjective, timeserving and an idea imported from the West.

Regardless, inequality in privacy preservation often reinforces social inequality. Practices like surveillance that are geared towards a specific group highlight that marginalised communities are more likely to have less data privacy. As an example, migrants, labourers, persons with a conviction history and marginalised racial groups are often subject to extremely invasive surveillance under suspicions of posing threats and are thus forced to flee their place of birth or residence. This also highlights the fact that focus on DPD is not limited to those who lack data privacy but also to those who have (either by design or by force) excess privacy. While on one end, excessive surveillance, carried out by both governments and private entities, forces immigrants to wait in deportation centres during the pendency of their case, the other end of the privacy extreme hosts a vast number of undocumented individuals who avoid government contact for fear of deportation, despite noting high rates of crime victimization.

DPD is also noted among groups with differential knowledge and skills in cyber security. For example, in India, data privacy laws mandate that information be provided on order of a court or any enforcement agency. However, individuals with knowledge of advanced encryption are adopting communication channels that have encryption protocols that the provider cannot control (and resultantly able to exercise their right to privacy more effectively),  in contrast with individuals who have little knowledge of encryption, implying a security as well as an intellectual divide. While several options for secure communication exist, like Pretty Good Privacy, which enables encrypted emailing, they are complex and not easy to use in addition to having negative reputations, like the Tor Browser. Cost considerations also are a major factor in propelling DPD since users who cannot afford devices like those by Apple, which have privacy by default, are forced to opt for devices that have relatively poor in-built encryption. 

Children remain the most vulnerable group. During the pandemic, it was noted that only 24% of Indian households had internet facilities to access e-education and several reported needing to access free internet outside of their homes. These public networks are known for their lack of security and privacy, as traffic can be monitored by the hotspot operator or others on the network if proper encryption measures are not in place. Elsewhere, students without access to devices for remote learning have limited alternatives and are often forced to rely on Chromebooks and associated Google services. In response to this issue, Google provided free Chromebooks and mobile hotspots to students in need during the pandemic, aiming to address the digital divide. However, in 2024, New Mexico was reported to be suing Google for allegedly collecting children’s data through its educational products provided to the state's schools, claiming that it tracks students' activities on their personal devices outside of the classroom. It signified the problems in ensuring the privacy of lower-income students while accessing basic education.

Policy Recommendations

Digital literacy is one of the critical components in bridging the DPD. It enables individuals to gain skills, which in turn effectively addresses privacy violations. Studies show that low-income users remain less confident in their ability to manage their privacy settings as compared to high-income individuals. Thus, emphasis should be placed not only on educating on technology usage but also on privacy practices since it aims to improve people’s Internet skills and take informed control of their digital identities.

In the U.S., scholars have noted the role of libraries and librarians in safeguarding intellectual privacy. The Library Freedom Project, for example, has sought to ensure that the skills and knowledge required to ensure internet freedoms are available to all. The Project channelled one of the core values of the library profession i.e. intellectual freedom, literacy, equity of access to recorded knowledge and information, privacy and democracy. As a result, the Project successfully conducted workshops on internet privacy for the public and also openly objected to the Department of Homeland Security’s attempts to shut down the use of encryption technologies in libraries. The International Federation of Library Association adopted a Statement of Privacy in the Library Environment in 2015 that specified “when libraries and information services provide access to resources, services or technologies that may compromise users’ privacy, libraries should encourage users to be aware of the implications and provide guidance in data protection and privacy.” The above should be used as an indicative case study for setting up similar protocols in inclusive public institutions like Anganwadis, local libraries, skill development centres and non-government/non-profit organisations in India, where free education is disseminated. The workshops conducted must inculcate two critical aspects; firstly, enhancing the know-how of using public digital infrastructure and popular technologies (thereby de-alienating technology) and secondly, shifting the viewpoint of privacy as a right an individual has and not something that they own.

However, digital literacy should not be wholly relied on, since it shifts the responsibility of privacy protection to the individual, who may not either be aware or cannot be controlled. Data literacy also does not address the larger issue of data brokers, consumer profiling, surveillance etc. Resultantly, an obligation on companies to provide simplified privacy summaries, in addition to creating accessible, easy-to-use technical products and privacy tools,  should be necessitated. Most notable legislations address this problem by mandating notices and consent for collecting personal data of users, despite slow enforcement. However, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 in India aims to address DPD by not only mandating valid consent but also ensuring that privacy policies remain accessible in local languages, given the diversity of the population.

References

• https://idronline.org/article/inequality/indias-digital-divide-from-bad-to-worse/ 
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.02669 
• https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.07936#:~:text=The%20DPD%20index%20is%20a,(33%20years%20and%20over). 
• https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/ 
• https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf 
• /https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6265&context=law_lawreview 
• https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67203/1/Internet%20freedom%20for%20all%20Public%20libraries%20have%20to%20get%20serious%20about%20tackling%20the%20digital%20privacy%20divi.pdf 
• https://bosniaca.nub.ba/index.php/bosniaca/article/view/488/pdf 
• https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/just-24-of-indian-households-have-internet-facility-to-access-e-education-unicef/story-a1g7DqjP6lJRSh6D6yLJjL.html 
• https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2021/05/05/the-pandemic-has-unmasked-the-digital-privacy-divide/ 
• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf 
• https://www.isc.meiji.ac.jp/~ethicj/Privacy%20protection%20in%20Japan.pdf 
• https://socialchangenyu.com/review/the-surveillance-gap-the-harms-of-extreme-privacy-and-data-marginalization/