Gaming the Rankings: Unpacking Defamation and Free Speech in Play Games 24×7 v. Skoch Group

In a digital era where rankings and reviews significantly influence consumer choices, what happens when these rankings are alleged to be biased, defamatory, and self-serving? This question takes center stage in the recent case of Play Games 24×7 Private Limited v. Skoch Group & Ors.[1], heard by the Delhi High Court. The dispute brings to light the fine balance between free speech and responsible advertising, with serious implications for the gaming industry and beyond.

Facts of the case

Play Games 24×7, a leading player in India’s online gaming industry, operates popular platforms such as RummyCircle and My11Circle. The company, known for its compliance with industry standards and a stellar reputation, found itself ranked unfavourably (9th and 11th) in an advertisement published by Skoch Group on its platform. The advertisement claimed to evaluate gaming platforms but was allegedly based on subjective criteria and influenced by participants with vested interests.

Allegations by Play Games 24×7 include

1. The rankings were biased, with competitors of the plaintiff’s platforms occupying the top spots.
2. The advertisement used the plaintiff’s trademarks without consent.
3. The exercise was a ploy to solicit paid participation in Skoch Group’s consultancy services and awards.

The plaintiff argued that such practices not only harmed its reputation but also misled consumers, violating advertising norms and principles of fair competition.

Issues raised

1. Defamation and Trade Libel: Did the advertisement disparage the plaintiff’s products and damage its reputation?
2. Trademark Misuse: Was the unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s trademarks in the advertisement lawful?
3. Unfair Competition: Did the rankings amount to unfair trade practices and injurious falsehood?
4. Free Speech vs. Responsible Advertising: Does such an advertisement fall under the ambit of free speech, or does it cross the line into defamation and misinformation?

The Delhi High Court observed that the plaintiff had made a prima facie case, noting the following:

• The rankings appeared to be influenced by a task force comprising representatives of competitors ranked at the top, raising questions of fairness and objectivity.
• The plaintiff had not consented to the use of its trademarks in the advertisement.
• The exercise lacked transparency and could harm the plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill.

The court granted interim relief, directing the defendants to redact the plaintiff’s name and trademarks from the advertisement on their website and social media platforms. The matter was scheduled for further hearings to address the substantive issues.

Does This Violate the Right to Free Speech?

The case raises a critical question: Does restricting such advertisements infringe on the defendants’ right to free speech?

While Article 19(1)(a)[2] of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this right is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)[3], which include protecting the reputation of others. In this case:

• The rankings were presented as objective but were allegedly biased and self-serving, misleading consumers and harming the plaintiff’s reputation.
• Freedom of speech does not extend to defamatory or false statements made with malice or commercial intent.

Thus, the court’s intervention strikes a balance between upholding free speech and ensuring accountability in advertising practices.

The Play Games 24×7 v. Skoch Group case, while addressing critical concerns about fairness and defamation, has the potential to create some negative ripple effects. One of the primary concerns is the chilling effect it could have on legitimate reviews and rankings. Fear of legal action might deter platforms from providing honest feedback or critical evaluations, which are essential for consumer decision-making and market transparency. Over-cautiousness in rankings could limit the availability of unbiased information, ultimately harming consumers and businesses that rely on these tools to make informed choices.

Another significant impact is the likelihood of increased litigation in competitive industries. By setting a precedent, this case could encourage companies to file lawsuits over unfavourable rankings or advertisements, clogging the judicial system with similar disputes. Smaller companies, with limited resources to defend themselves, may find it difficult to compete in such a litigious environment, further skewing the market in favour of larger, well-funded players.

The case also raises concerns about the balance between free speech and defamation. Overregulation of speech in advertising could blur the lines between constructive criticism and defamatory content. This might discourage creative or critical expressions, stifling open discourse and reducing marketplace transparency. Such restrictions could create a climate of fear among advertisers and reviewers, ultimately harming the spirit of free competition.

Finally, the public nature of this case risks reputational damage for both parties involved. Legal disputes of this nature often draw widespread attention, leading consumers to question the credibility of the companies and platforms implicated. This skepticism may extend to the broader industry, undermining trust in ranking systems and advertisements. Additionally, stricter scrutiny on advertising practices could lead to increased compliance costs, disproportionately affecting smaller companies trying to establish themselves in competitive markets. These potential negative impacts highlight the importance of carefully balancing the protection of reputations with the preservation of free speech and market fairness. The case underscores the need for clear guidelines to ensure accountability without stifling honest critique or innovation.

Conclusion

The case of Play Games 24×7 v. Skoch Group is a stark reminder that with great influence comes great responsibility. Rankings and advertisements must adhere to principles of fairness, transparency, and ethical conduct. While free speech is a cornerstone of democracy, it cannot be a shield for practices that harm reputations and mislead the public.

This judgment reinforces the importance of maintaining integrity in commercial communications, setting a precedent for the gaming industry and beyond. As the digital landscape evolves, businesses and advertisers must tread carefully, ensuring that their practices do not undermine trust or violate the rights of others.

[1] Play Games 24×7 Private Limited v. Skoch Group & Ors., CS(COMM) 41/2025 & I.A. Nos. 1265-1267/2025.

[2] India Const. art. 19(1)(a).

[3] India Const. art. 19(2).

Authored by: Aeshita Marwah

Blogger, The IP Press