The government recently banned over 20 streaming platforms for serving up a buffet of bold, sexually explicit content, mostly without filters, warnings, or paywalls. Think late-night content, made for mobile, pushed for clicks, and available to anyone with a smartphone and curiosity.
But this isn’t just about these apps getting de-platformed. It’s about what happens when quick fame trumps content ethics, when creators chase virality over value, and when no one wants to take responsibility for what ends up on screen.
The question now isn’t whether the ban was fair. It’s: how did the industry get here, and who’s really responsible for cleaning it up?
Names like ULLU, ALTT, Feneo, and HitPrime are among those that went dark following the takedown.
But this wasn’t a sudden strike. The crackdown follows a trail of government advisories, legal interventions, and regulatory warnings over the past year. In February 2025, a similar advisory was circulated after widespread complaints, particularly against ad-funded OTTs accused of bypassing basic age classification norms.
Going further back, in July and August 2024, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) flagged concerns about explicit content on Ullu and ALTT, urging the government to intervene. In September 2024, the MIB reportedly sent written communications to the very platforms that are now banned, warning them to clean up their act.
On April 28, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Centre on a plea by former Information Commissioner Uday Mahurkar, who sought a nationwide ban on sexually explicit content on OTT and social media platforms.
There were earlier attempts to enforce action too. In May 2025, Ullu was forced to take down a controversial web series titled “House Arrest” after ministerial pushback, but returned with similar content weeks later. Even more brazen, at least five of the banned platforms had previously been blocked in March 2024 but resurfaced under new domain names, continuing to stream uncensored adult content.
The Digital Publisher Content Grievances Council (DPCGC), a self-regulatory body chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice A.K. Sikri, had also raised red flags. It called out platforms like ALTT and Ullu for streaming what it described as “distasteful and bizarre” scenes involving nudity and gratuitous sex that lacked narrative context. DPCGC’s findings revealed that Ullu had taken down over 100 web series following complaints, only to quietly re-upload them in unedited form later.
But while the government’s justification centres on protecting vulnerable users, particularly minors, the real story runs deeper, rooted in the messy crossroads of content regulation, ad-driven business models, and a fast-evolving digital audience.
“If you keep crossing the line, trouble will follow”
Ashish Bhasin, Founder of The Bhasin Consulting Group, believes this isn’t so much about censorship as it is about responsibility.
“I’m not one for bans or censorship, but if someone keeps deliberately crossing societal boundaries, it can’t go unchecked. You have to operate within certain norms. Especially in a country where a mobile phone is in every hand, kids, teenagers, everyone,” he said.
Bhasin argued that the onus falls squarely on platform owners and content heads. “When founders start distancing themselves from their own platforms, you know something went wrong. Somebody made that content strategy. Someone pushed those scripts.”
He added that if OTT platforms want to protect their freedom, they need to collectively draw boundaries. “We need a self-regulatory body, like ASCI in advertising, that lays down rules based on the target audience. You can’t put adult content where children have open access. That’s not creative liberty. That’s negligence.”
“These users aren’t even the audience brands want”
For Abhay Ojha, Group CEO of ITV Network, the issue isn’t just content, it’s commerce.
“These platforms leaned on explicit content because it got them attention. But attention doesn’t always mean value,” he explained. “The audience they cater to, think small-town shopkeepers, daily wage workers, don’t always translate into buying power. So, for most advertisers, there’s no business case to be there.”
Ojha broke it down, “When a person is watching that kind of content on mute late at night, are they in a mindset to receive an ad for a car, or an FMCG product? No. It’s passive consumption. No conversions.”
He also pointed to flawed content strategies that prioritised virality over viability. “If they’d added a paywall, even Rs 100 a month, and locked the content behind proper age filters, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”
“Small platforms don’t have stars, they have shock value”
So why is this trend largely seen on smaller OTTs?
“Simple,” Ojha said. “They can’t afford high-budget shows or actors. What’s left is cheap, provocative content that’s easy to produce and goes viral. It’s a shortcut to visibility.”
Ojha also highlighted a fundamental disconnect between content and culture. “We’re still not an openly permissive society. People may privately want to consume this content, but when it’s made public, easily accessible, shareable, visible on social media, that’s when the backlash begins.”
In fact, he believes this entire situation is less about adult content and more about public context. “What you do in private isn’t the government’s concern. But when you bring it out in the open, and there are no guardrails, of course regulators will act.”
“I don’t support bans, but something had to give”
Former Sony and Hotstar Content Head Ashish Golwalkar is cautious about where regulation might lead.
“I’m not a fan of censorship. If people want to watch something, they’ll find a way, through torrents, VPNs, whatever. That’s the internet,” he said.
But he acknowledges the underlying issue. “There needs to be accountability. In the early days of TV, we had IBF (Indian Broadcasting Foundation) which handled this through a self-regulatory body. Platforms came together, complaints were reviewed, and action was taken if needed. OTT needs something similar.”
For Golwalkar, the danger isn’t in content, it’s in not having a neutral system to evaluate it. “What’s vulgar to one person might be bold storytelling to another. That’s why the decision must never lie solely with governments. Let the industry regulate itself. Otherwise, we’re on a slippery slope.”
The bigger picture: Eyeballs vs ethics
According to PwC’s Global Media and Entertainment Outlook 2024–2028, India’s OTT sector will be worth Rs 31,800 crore by the end of 2025 (considering the growth trajectory from the baseline year 2023), growing at a CAGR of 14.3%.
While subscription-based platforms dominate revenue, ad-supported models have seen massive growth in user base, especially in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities.
Media Partners Asia’s 2024 report estimated that over 60% of free OTT viewership comes from these regions, where data is cheap, phones are abundant, and content is king. However, according to a July 2025 report titled “Understanding the Need for OTT Content Regulation”, over 70% of respondents in national surveys believe that platforms should implement age‑gating mechanisms and be held accountable for distributing sensitive content without safeguards
It’s a pattern: a focus on fast views, not long-term value. And the cracks are starting to show.
Where do we go from here?
Everyone agrees: this won’t be the last crackdown.
“This is not a one-time clean-up,” said Bhasin. “You ban ten, twenty more will pop up. The only solution is industry-led boundaries. Voluntary commitments. A shared playbook.”
Ojha concurred, “Lock the content behind subscriptions, implement real verification, and be clear about your target audience. If you don’t want to be underground, then act like you belong in the mainstream.”
And Golwalkar? “The freedom to create should never be silenced. But freedom without filters is chaos.”
So as India’s OTT ecosystem grows up, the question remains:
Can content creators and platforms build a framework that protects both expression and ethics, or will more bans keep filling that vacuum?
Is the industry ready to regulate itself, before someone else does it for them?
