India’s ASCI flags 4,858 gambling ads a year after PROGA ban: report

Dig Deeper

Related stories

2025/02/19: Advertising Standards Council of India signed a memorandum of understanding with gambling trade bodies 2026/08/25: Total Philippines gambling ad ban seen handing market back to illegal operators, data from five countries show 2026/03/13: March Madness brings increased focused on sports betting ads 2025/04/22: Philippines scrutinizes online gambling amid money laundering risks

The Backstory

India’s ad crackdown moved faster than enforcement

India’s latest tally of flagged gambling advertisements points to a familiar regulatory problem: bans can reduce lawful promotion while leaving offshore operators enough digital routes to keep reaching consumers. The Advertising Standards Council of India’s finding that 4,858 gambling ads were flagged in the year after the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act took effect suggests the law has changed the shape of the market more than it has ended the activity.

The pattern did not emerge suddenly. Before the current post-PROGA count, the advertising watchdog and domestic gaming bodies had already been building a shared enforcement apparatus to identify offshore marketing. In February, the council signed an agreement with the Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports, the All India Gaming Federation and the E-Gaming Federation, creating a monitoring cell to screen for illegal offshore gambling advertising and code violations by legal real-money gaming companies. That arrangement, described in ASCI’s memorandum with Indian gambling trade bodies, had already identified 413 offshore gambling ads within weeks of beginning work.

The memorandum reflected a core concern for Indian regulators: offshore operators have no local accountability but can use Indian celebrities, influencers, sports content and social platforms to acquire customers. Because gambling advertising is prohibited in most parts of the country, those promotions were already outside the law. PROGA added a national framework, but the enforcement burden still fell heavily on monitoring platforms where ads can be posted, removed, reposted and disguised at low cost.

Offshore operators adapted to the new law

The larger enforcement record showed that offshore betting brands did not retreat after India tightened its gaming rules. An earlier complaints report found 7,927 offshore betting ads in 2025, including 6,933 from April through December, making the category the largest source of advertising violations that year. The data showed average monthly violations rising after PROGA came into effect, with offshore operators using social media, influencers, affiliate marketers, messaging apps and community pages to reach Indian users.

That report, covered in the surge in offshore betting ads despite India’s gaming law, also described how some operators used more than 60 domains and reappeared through new accounts and brand variations after enforcement action. The tactic matters because it weakens traditional compliance tools. A takedown can remove a page or advertisement, but it does not necessarily stop the underlying advertiser from moving traffic to a mirror domain, a new affiliate account or a private channel.

The current figures appear to show a similar cycle at a more mature stage. Most ads were found on digital platforms, particularly Meta’s ad library, Instagram and websites. Reports were heavily concentrated in the first six months after PROGA, then fell before rising again in June and July. That arc suggests offshore marketers may have paused, shifted channels or adjusted creative formats after the initial scrutiny, then resumed activity once new pathways were tested.

Influencers became a key enforcement gap

India’s experience also shows why the advertising debate has moved beyond traditional media. ASCI’s annual work highlighted hundreds of influencers promoting offshore gambling content, and prior reporting identified 854 influencers tied to offshore betting promotions during part of 2025. These campaigns often used localized messaging, betting tips and instructional content, making them look less like conventional ads and more like community discussion or sports commentary.

That format complicates enforcement. Influencer content can be ephemeral, cross-posted and routed through fan pages or private groups. It can also blur the line between paid promotion and personal recommendation. For regulators, the challenge is not just whether a gambling brand appears in a broadcast spot or banner ad, but whether an affiliate network is embedding betting links inside short videos, livestream comments, sports memes or messaging-app communities.

The same issue has surfaced in other markets. In the United States, March Madness betting interest put renewed attention on digital sports wagering promotions and responsible-gaming disclosures. Research cited by the American Gaming Association showed that prediction-market advertising expanded sharply even as overall sportsbook advertising declined, with a significant share of digital sports betting ads lacking state-mandated responsible-gaming messages. The U.S. debate, described in the focus on sports betting ads during March Madness, underscores a broader point: digital ad volume can shift from licensed or clearly regulated operators to adjacent or less clearly supervised channels.

The ban-versus-channelization trade-off

India’s post-PROGA numbers feed into a wider international debate over whether broad advertising bans protect consumers or hand more visibility to illegal operators. The Philippines is weighing that issue directly, as lawmakers consider a total gambling advertising ban that would cover broadcast, print, outdoor, websites, apps, social media, celebrity endorsements and sports sponsorships. Market data from several countries suggest that when licensed operators are silenced, illegal operators often keep advertising and gain relative advantage.

A recent analysis of the Philippine proposal argued that a total ban could reverse gains made by channeling players from illegal offshore sites into licensed platforms. The article, a review of gambling advertising bans and illegal-market risks, cited Italy, Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom to show how different approaches affect channelization. Jurisdictions that sharply restricted legal advertising saw illegal operators retain or expand reach, while the U.K. model allowed advertising under strict content, placement and targeting rules and kept most online play inside the licensed market.

The Indian context differs, but the enforcement logic is comparable. Legal domestic gaming companies are more likely to reduce advertising after a new law because they face licensing, reputational and regulatory consequences. Offshore betting operators, by contrast, already operate outside local permission structures. A ban or tight restriction can therefore have an uneven effect: compliant firms retreat, while illegal operators shift to domains, affiliates, influencers and social pages that are harder to police.

Financial-crime concerns raise the stakes

Advertising enforcement is not only a consumer-protection issue. It also affects the ability of governments to see, tax and supervise gambling flows. The Philippines illustrates the connection between online gambling growth and financial-crime oversight. After the country exited the Financial Action Task Force grey list in February 2025 following the ban on Philippine offshore gaming operators, its Anti-Money Laundering Council began increasing scrutiny of online gambling because of money laundering and terrorism-financing risks.

That review, covered in the Philippines’ scrutiny of online gambling and money laundering risks, came as online gaming revenue surged and regulators warned that clandestine activity could bypass formal controls. The lesson for India is that advertising channels can influence where consumers place bets. If users are directed to offshore platforms, authorities lose visibility over payments, identity checks, dispute resolution and suspicious transactions.

India’s PROGA was designed to draw a clearer boundary between permissible online gaming and prohibited betting activity. The ASCI numbers show that the boundary is being tested most aggressively in digital advertising. The high share of betting-related ads, compared with only two online gaming ads in the latest count, indicates that illegal betting operators remain the primary compliance challenge.

What the latest numbers signal

The drop in reported ads after the first six months of PROGA could be read as evidence that enforcement pressure worked. The renewed rise in June and July points to the opposite risk: offshore advertisers may be learning how to operate around the system. Both interpretations can be true. Initial scrutiny can suppress obvious ads while pushing promotion into more fragmented, disguised and influencer-led formats.

That leaves India with a practical enforcement question. ASCI and trade bodies can monitor, flag and refer ads, but offshore operators can fragment campaigns faster than traditional enforcement mechanisms move. Platforms, affiliate networks and influencers therefore become central to the regulatory chain. Without stronger obligations on those intermediaries, the same brands can continue to reach consumers even after individual ads are removed.

The current article’s figures are significant because they show the persistence of offshore betting promotion after a landmark law. PROGA appears to have reduced the space for compliant domestic advertising, but it has not eliminated illegal betting ads. The next phase will depend on whether India can turn detection into faster disruption across social platforms, domains, affiliates and influencer networks, while preserving enough clarity for consumers to distinguish lawful gaming from offshore betting sites beyond the reach of Indian regulators.