- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
WinZo approaches Delhi High Court to introduce its games on Google Play Store
WinZo approaches Delhi High Court to introduce its games on Google Play Store
The case has been listed for hearing on 24 April
Social gaming platform WinZo has knocked at the doors of the Delhi High Court seeking directions to Google for considering onboarding a bunch of its games on the Google Play Store. It has also sought a declaration that the games offered by it were ‘games of skills’ and were in compliance with Indian laws.
The declaration would entitle Winzo to seek the availability of the Google platform, which the latter has unfairly been denying.
WinZo said in its suit, "In the absence of a specific order from the court in the context of the games of skills hosted by the plaintiff, the defendants are unfairly refusing to allow the plaintiff’s application that hosts games of skills, to be listed/made available on Google Play, leading to impairment of the plaintiff’s ability to reach a major portion of its intended/target audience.”
While appearing for Winzo, advocate Abhishek Malhotra submitted before Justice Sanjeev Narula that Winzo's games were tested from the perspective of the preponderance of skills by an independent expert, Dr Neelesh S Upadhye, an associate professor at the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras.
On the other hand, senior advocate Sajan Poovayya, representing Google, contended that though Google started a pilot program with two games, it has never said it will allow all games of skills on its Play Store.
He further argued that the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information and Technology (MEITY) had issued a notification on 6 April 2023 making changes to the Information Technology (IT) Rules. It now requires a certificate on whether a game is one of ‘skill’ or ‘chance’.
However, even if certified being a game of skills, Google was not obliged to bring them on its platform, Poovayya added.
Advocate Malhotra responded that WinZo had filed the suit before the MEITY brought changes to the IT Rules. Therefore, he would now take instructions from WinZo accordingly.