ISLAMABAD (Special Correspondent): A promotional campaign titled “Re.1 Game,” currently running on the Easypaisa platform, has sparked widespread debate after raising serious questions about its legal status, regulatory oversight, and religious permissibility in Pakistan.
The campaign invites users to participate in prize draws by paying a nominal fee of one rupee, offering the chance to win high-value rewards such as smartphones. According to available details, users enter the draw upon payment, while all participants—except the winner—are refunded their one rupee.
Despite this refund mechanism, experts argue that the structure closely resembles a lottery-like system. Participation is based purely on chance, with only one or a limited number of users receiving the prize. Screenshots circulating online suggest that a single campaign has attracted over 400,000 participants, highlighting the scale of engagement. Given Easypaisa’s massive user base, the reach of such campaigns is substantial.
However, transparency remains a key concern. Questions have been raised about the selection process for winners, the presence (or absence) of independent audits, and whether all refunds are processed in a timely and verifiable manner. Critics argue that without clear disclosures, user trust may be at risk.
Another major issue is the apparent lack of explicit regulatory approval. Campaign materials do not clearly indicate authorization from the State Bank of Pakistan or any other relevant authority. Legal experts point out that under Sections 294-A and 294-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, prize-based schemes tied to payment can fall under scrutiny. However, the built-in refund mechanism places this campaign in a legal grey area, potentially requiring clarification from regulators or the courts.
From a Shariah perspective, scholars suggest that while the refund may prevent it from being classified as conventional gambling, a system driven entirely by chance can still fall into a doubtful category. This ambiguity has added another layer to the ongoing debate.
Public response has been mixed. While some users consider the campaign a harmless promotional activity, others have questioned its fairness, transparency, and verification process. Discussions across social media platforms continue to highlight concerns around winner authenticity and refund clarity.
Experts also warn of broader behavioral implications. Such schemes may encourage risk-taking tendencies and promote a “quick win” mindset—particularly among younger users who form a significant portion of digital wallet audiences.
Although the campaign appears to be a marketing strategy aimed at boosting user engagement, its structure, lack of visible regulatory backing, and religious sensitivity have made it a matter of significant public interest.
Analysts emphasize that if the scheme is fully compliant and transparent, the company should proactively disclose all relevant details—including regulatory approvals, audit procedures, and clear operational mechanisms—to ensure public confidence and accountability.
