RISKS OF CROSS-PLATFORM DATA SHARING IN INTERNET GAMBLING A POLICY AND DOCTRINAL STUDY OF DATA ETHICS, JURISDICTION, AND EXTRATERRITORIAL REGULATION
AUTHOR – PIRAJESH N R, STUDENT AT SCHOOL OF LAW CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY)
BEST CITATION – PIRAJESH N R, RISKS OF CROSS-PLATFORM DATA SHARING IN INTERNET GAMBLING A POLICY AND DOCTRINAL STUDY OF DATA ETHICS, JURISDICTION, AND EXTRATERRITORIAL REGULATION, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (2) OF 2026, PG. 843-852, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.
ABSTRACT
The asset in highest demand today is data, and the global economy runs on it. It facilitates markets and everyday life. Though also seen as hugely risky, data laws widely vary. Countries maintain that data must remain inside its borders. Other nations, as it were, allow transfers but impose conditions, thus bringing in conflicting opinions on global platforms. Online gambling has brought this rift into the open. Such platforms collect various data: about money, habits, and other personal details. They monitor gambling behavior using technology across devices, and in many cases, use prediction to manipulate betting behavior. This naturally opens the door to issues of privacy, addiction, and financial detriment. The most disadvantaged, like minors and ingrained addicts, are typically the ones to suffer. This article adopts a doctrinal approach to analyze the problem through statutes, case law, and academic literature, with a spotlight on EU’s GDPR and India’s DPDP Act 2023, making a comparison of the laws regulating cross-border data flow while also looking at landmark cases in the UK and India that have addressed the issues of profiling, consent-driven weaknesses, and pertaining liability. Paradoxically, while these courts have made some significant marks, it also reflects areas that are still lacking..[1] This paper reviews major literature. Reports from the Council of Europe show the damage that dark patterns and manipulative design cause.In addition, it reveals that economics studies prove easy access leading to indebtedness and bankruptcy. Other works show a fragmented legal system exposing the users to breaches. Indian scholarship indicates the liability still less than clear under the DPDP Act. Analysis indicates that unilateral laws alone are insufficient. The GDPR makes a claim for a worldwide reach. The same is true for PIPL in China. The reliance of India is on localization. All of these rules are mutually exclusive. A gambling platform cannot obey all of them simultaneously..[2] A judicial trend is very mixed. UK courts impose stricter duties of care. Indian courts feel that colonial legal doctrines have become outdated. There are, however, still a lack of clear guidance. The present paper proposes reforms. It calls for a broader interpretation of harms. Shared liability for consequences is also encouraged. Reciprocity in cross-border requests is advocated. Recommendations are made for gambling-specific guardrails. Trade-compatible ethics are emphasized as a necessity. Thus, the conclusion seems obvious. The internet would live in fragmentation without reform. The lacunae would be exploited by gambling. Unsafe would remain the users. With reform, the law can possibly strike a balance between innovation and protection. Most of all, this balance is needed by gambling platforms. It is dependent upon it.
Key Words – Online Gambling, Cross-Platform Data, GDPR, DPDP Act, Jurisdiction, Data Ethics
[1]https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=228618&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=107370 (accessed on September 11,2025, Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). (2020). Judgment in Case C-311/18, Data Protection Commissioner v. Facebook Ireland Limited and Maximillian Schrems.china)
[2] https://digichina.stanford.edu/work/translation-personal-information-protection-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-effective-nov-1-2021/ (accessed on September 11, 2025, Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China. Adopted at the 30th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People’s Congress, 20 August 2021.)