On 4 June 2025, eleven people died in a crowd crush outside Bengaluru's M. Chinnaswamy Stadium during celebrations after Royal Challengers Bengaluru won the Indian Premier League. The tragedy exposed a familiar problem: organisers, the team, the venue and public authorities disputed responsibility for planning, permissions and crowd control. In proceedings before the Karnataka High Court, the State said the organisers had proceeded without formal permission despite the expected crowd. The inquiry and ensuing litigation show why the question matters beyond cricket. An esports final, fan meet-up or watch party can create similar risks when promotion brings people to a venue without adequate entry, security and emergency arrangements.
An esports event may involve a game publisher, tournament organiser, venue operator, production company, ticketing platform, security contractor, sponsors, casters and streamers. Their roles overlap, but legal duties do not arise simply because each is commercially connected to the event. Liability depends on each party's conduct, the risks it could reasonably foresee, the authority it exercised and the obligations it accepted. India has no single statute allocating every duty across this chain. Civil negligence, criminal law, consumer protection, contract and the statutory framework for online gaming may apply to different parts of the same event.
The Bengaluru proceedings provide a warning, but not a rule that every participant is equally liable. The Karnataka High Court's account of the stampede proceedings records the State's case that formal permission had not been obtained, public announcements led to a large gathering, and entry and crowd management were inadequate. The event-management agreement also assigned permissions and security services to the production company. Responsibility can therefore follow both practical control and contractual allocation. The inquiry report was challenged in court; it is not, by itself, a final determination of civil or criminal liability against every person named in it.
For an esports organiser, the first questions are straightforward: who selected the venue, set the capacity, sold or distributed passes, controlled entry, hired security and decided when to open the gates? An organiser who makes those decisions must plan for foreseeable crowd size, bottlenecks, emergency exits, medical assistance and coordination with local authorities. Depending on the venue and local rules, permissions may be needed from police, fire or municipal authorities. A disclaimer stating that spectators attend at their own risk cannot replace reasonable precautions. Indemnities between the organiser and venue may allocate losses between the contracting parties, but they do not automatically defeat a spectator's claim or prevent criminal investigation.
Criminal and civil liability must be kept separate. Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, addresses causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide; Section 125 addresses acts that endanger human life or personal safety. Application depends on evidence of the accused person's conduct and the statutory ingredients, not merely on their job title or presence in the event's commercial chain. Civil negligence asks whether a duty of care was owed and breached, causing legally recognised harm. A contract can help identify assigned responsibilities, but it cannot conclusively determine criminal responsibility or bind injured third parties who never signed it.
Consumer law may provide a more direct remedy for financial losses. A spectator who buys a ticket is ordinarily purchasing a service and may complain about cancellation, misleading event descriptions or a material failure to provide what was promised. A claim for an announced but unpaid prize pool may instead turn on the player's contract, tournament rules and the facts; a professional team or player will not automatically qualify as a consumer, particularly where the service was acquired for a commercial purpose. Nor does every postponement or dispute amount to a deficiency in service. Clear rules on eligibility, prize amounts, payment dates, cancellation and dispute resolution reduce the risk. Keeping prize money in a segregated account or placing it in escrow before competition begins can protect players and provide evidence that the organiser planned responsibly.
Streamers present a different kind of exposure. When a creator endorses a product or service in an advertisement, Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, empowers the Central Consumer Protection Authority to direct discontinuance or modification of a misleading advertisement and, in specified circumstances, impose penalties or prohibit further endorsements. The statutory maximum is up to ₹10 lakh for a first contravention and up to ₹50 lakh for subsequent contraventions; an endorser who has exercised due diligence to verify the claims has a statutory defence to penalties under subsections (2) and (3). The Supreme Court's observations in Indian Medical Association v Union of India stressed that celebrities and influencers must take responsibility for endorsements and exercise due diligence. The 2022 CCPA guidelines also require disclosure of a material connection where the audience would not reasonably expect it. A paid promotion should therefore be clearly identified, and claims about a sponsor should be checked rather than repeated from a script without scrutiny.
Endorsement, however, is not the same as organising. A streamer who casts a match or promotes a tournament online will not automatically become responsible for crowd safety. The position may change if the streamer co-hosts a physical event, chooses the venue, controls ticketing, shares event revenue or personally invites followers to attend a location. The more a creator participates in decisions that create or manage the gathering, the stronger the argument that the creator assumed responsibilities beyond advertising. Contracts should distinguish between a promotional appearance, a broadcast role and co-organiser status—and actual conduct must match that description.
Sponsorship requires a separate check under the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. The Act and the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, 2026 came into force on 1 May 2026. The Act prohibits specified activities relating to online money games, including offering, facilitating and advertising them, while creating a framework for esports and online social games. Importantly, the statutory definition of an “online money game” excludes esports. The presence of a prize pool or a sponsor associated with gaming therefore does not, by itself, establish a violation. The relevant questions include whether the activity qualifies as esports under the Act, whether the sponsor operates or promotes a prohibited online money game, and whether the proposed material amounts to prohibited advertising. Organisers and streamers should verify the sponsor's actual product and the nature of the event rather than rely on a brand's description of itself. Registration requirements under the online-gaming framework should also be checked where applicable; they should not be confused with the separate National Sports Governance Act, 2025.
Game publishers may appear distant from venue operations, but licensing terms can shape an event. A publisher may set rules for branding, broadcast rights, sponsor categories, tournament formats and event partners. Those powers do not automatically make it liable for every injury or payment dispute. They may matter if the publisher materially contributes to the risk or undertakes specific responsibilities and fails to perform them. Publishers should clarify who must obtain local permissions and whether compliance checks are required for licensed events. Detailed rules that are never enforced may be less protective than a clear allocation of duties backed by practical oversight.
The safeguards are achievable. Organisers should document permissions, capacity limits, security and medical plans before ticket sales; publish consistent entry conditions; and ensure staffing matches the expected crowd. Tournament rules should identify the prize pool, its funding, payment deadlines and remedies for non-payment. Venues and production companies should agree who controls each safety-critical decision. Sponsors should be screened against online-money-gaming restrictions and misleading-advertising rules. Streamers should disclose paid relationships and specify whether they are endorsers, performers or co-organisers. Publishers should make licence conditions workable and assign compliance responsibilities clearly. Insurance can help meet losses, but it cannot substitute for prevention or erase statutory duties.
When an esports event goes wrong, the answer is unlikely to be found in a single contract or in the person with the largest online following. It depends on who created the risk, who could reduce it, what each party promised and whether those responsibilities were performed. Commercial association alone does not establish liability, but neither can a party avoid responsibility simply by labelling itself a sponsor, streamer, licensor or service provider. The safer event is one in which control, accountability and evidence are settled before the first invitation is published.
Author is an Advocate based in Delhi. Views are personal.