By Aniket Ghosh

Introduction: Why Gaming Platforms Sit at the Centre of Privacy Enforcement

India’s gaming and interactive entertainment ecosystem comprising online gaming platforms, fantasy sports operators, real-money gaming companies, casual mobile games, esports platforms and gamified social apps has experienced explosive growth. These platforms are no longer passive entertainment providers; they are data-intensive behavioural engines involving major data privacy risks.

Every tap, swipe, pause and in-game decision is captured, analysed and monetised. As a result, gaming platforms process some of the most granular behavioural datasets in the digital economy, often involving:

With the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (“DPDP Rules”), gaming companies now face heightened legal scrutiny, particularly around consent, profiling, children’s data, dark patterns and targeted advertising.

Applicability of the DPDP Act to Gaming and Interactive Platforms

Platforms Covered

The DPDP Act applies to all entities processing digital personal data, including:

Both Indian and offshore platforms offering services to users in India fall within scope.

Gaming Companies as Data Fiduciaries

Gaming platforms almost invariably qualify as data fiduciaries, as they determine:

Third parties such as analytics providers, ad-tech platforms, payment processors and cloud service providers operate as data processors, though primary liability remains with the platform. Large gaming platforms may be designated as Significant Data Fiduciaries (SDFs) due to:

Behavioural Data in Gaming: A High-Risk Category

What Is Behavioural Data?

Gaming platforms routinely collect:

When combined, this data enables deep behavioural profiling, capable of predicting user preferences, vulnerabilities and spending propensity.

Why Regulators Are Concerned

Behavioural profiling in gaming raises concerns around:

Under the DPDP Act, such data processing must be lawful, proportionate and purpose-bound – a standard many legacy gaming models struggle to meet.

Consent in Gaming: Validity Under the DPDP Act

Consent Must Be Real, Not Illusory

Gaming platforms often rely on click-wrap agreements, bundled consents, and long, technical privacy policies. Under the DPDP Act, consent must be:

“Accept to play” models that condition access on broad data permissions risk being treated as coerced consent.

DPDP Rules: Notice and Transparency Obligations

The DPDP Rules require platforms to disclose:

Generic disclosures that do not explain behavioural analytics and profiling are unlikely to withstand scrutiny.

Dark Patterns and Manipulative Design in Gaming

What Are Dark Patterns?

Dark patterns are interface designs that manipulate user behaviour, including:

While not explicitly defined in the DPDP Act, such practices undermine free and informed consent.

Regulatory Trajectory

Gaming platforms are increasingly scrutinised by consumer protection authorities, sectoral regulators, and Courts. Under the DPDP framework, dark patterns may invalidate consent and expose platforms to enforcement action for unlawful data processing.

Children’s Data: A Legal Minefield for Gaming Platforms

Children Under the DPDP Act

Any user below 18 years is a child under the DPDP Act. This is particularly consequential for gaming platforms with:

Parental Consent and Verification

Processing children’s data requires:

Self-declared age gates are insufficient.

Prohibition on Tracking and Targeted Advertising

The DPDP Act restricts behavioural tracking, profiling and targeted advertising directed at children. This directly impacts:

Real-Money Gaming, Payments and Financial Data

Financial and Transactional Data

Real-money gaming platforms process:

This data carries elevated risk due to Fraud potential, addiction concerns, and regulatory overlap with financial laws. Such data must be processed with heightened security and minimal retention.

KYC and Identity Data

Where KYC is required, platforms must:

Repurposing KYC data for marketing or profiling is legally hazardous.

Third-Party Sharing and Ad-Tech Risk

Gaming platforms frequently integrate with advertising networks, attribution providers, and analytics engines. The DPDP Act places responsibility on the gaming platform to ensure:

Uncontrolled SDKs and plug-ins are a common source of data leakage.

Data Breaches and Incident Response

Mandatory Reporting Obligations

Under the DPDP Act and Rules, gaming platforms must notify the Data Protection Board of India and affected users. This obligation applies even to non-financial harm.

Reputational Fallout

Data breaches involving children, behavioural data, and payment information are likely to attract disproportionate public and regulatory backlash.

Penalties and Enforcement Exposure

Monetary Penalties

The DPDP Act empowers the Data Protection Board to impose penalties up to INR 250 crore per contravention, considering:

Gaming platforms processing children’s or behavioural data face elevated penalty risk.\

Business Impact

Beyond penalties, platforms may face:

For gaming businesses, regulatory action can directly threaten viability.

Compliance Roadmap for Gaming Platforms

Conclusion: Sustainable Gaming Requires Responsible Data Practices

The DPDP Act and Rules signal a clear regulatory message: behavioural exploitation is not a sustainable business model. Gaming platforms must rebalance innovation with responsibility, particularly where vulnerable users are involved.

Platforms that proactively redesign consent, limit profiling and embed privacy-by-design will be best positioned to thrive in India’s evolving digital ecosystem.