Dark Patterns in E-Commerce – An Analysis of Legal Regulations from the Perspective of Consumer Protection Law in India

Dark Patterns in E-Commerce – An Analysis of Legal Regulations from the Perspective of Consumer Protection Law in India

Abstract

The rise of digital commerce in India has not only resulted in an increase in consumer activity but also made the digital market essential to everyday consumer activity in the country. Along with that, however, the practice of using “dark patterns” – deceptive user interface design to influence users’ decision-making and negate their consent  becomes more common.[1] Such actions involve the use of hidden charges, mandatory subscriptions, urgency cues, as well as manipulation of consent forms.

The present paper will examine the legislative framework aimed at regulation of dark patterns in India, i.e., Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023[2]. In other words, the argument of the paper will be that despite the efforts made by India in order to regulate dark patterns more effectively, many things remain to be improved.

Introduction

The emergence of digital business activities has completely changed the way business organizations conduct their transactions with customers. Undoubtedly, with the extensive spread of cellular devices and Internet facilities, digital business becomes common in India. On the one hand, such developments make transactions easier; however, on the other hand, they allow businesses to exploit psychological weaknesses of their clients through manipulation with different aspects of digital interfaces – so-called “dark patterns[3].”

Dark patterns refer to deceptive design techniques that coerce users into taking actions that they might not have done had they known differently. Such techniques include misleading advertisements, forced continuity subscriptions, hidden fees, confirm shaming, and false urgency strategies. Dark patterns pose a threat to consumer autonomy and raise serious questions about informed consent and consumer choice in digital purchases[4]. The current paper aims at revealing the weaknesses of the Indian legislation related to dark pattern regulation. It will be accomplished through the analysis of the relevant legislative framework, evaluation of its effectiveness and suggestions for improvement.

1. Introduction to Dark Patterns and Current Regulatory Framework

The term “dark patterns” was coined by a user experience designer Harry Brignull[5] in an attempt to classify certain manipulative and deceptive design techniques used by firms in order to secure consumers’ consent.

• Hidden fees disclosed during the payment Pre-ticked consent forms;
• subscription traps and difficult cancellation mechanisms;
• Fake countdowns that induce feelings of urgency;
• Deceptive ads camouflaged as useful information.

With regards to Indian laws, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019[6] governs problems related to unfair trade practices. Unfair trade practices have been broadly defined under Section 2(47), which may include any deceptive act committed against consumers through digital media. Also, the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020[7] gives certain guidelines concerning the duties of e-commerce organizations. In order to avoid any form of manipulation within the cyberspace, the Central Consumer Protection Authority[8] has framed Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns in 2023[9]. The guidelines contain prohibitions for certain deceptive methods in digital platforms and ads.[10]

Some of the prohibited dark patterns identified in the 2023 Guidelines include:

• Basket sneak;
• Confirm shaming;
• Forced action;
• Subscription trap;
• Interface interference;
• Bait-and-switch.

These guidelines are applicable to advertisers, sellers and online service providers in India. Importantly, this is one of the few formal regulatory attempts globally where dark pattern has been legally recognized through consumer laws[11]. Nonetheless, there exists some confusion regarding the legality of the Guidelines since from their perspective, the guidelines do not amount to legislation but rather sub-legislation

1. Judicial and Regulatory Challenges in Addressing Dark Patterns

While India has recognised the threat of dark patterns, practical implementation poses a significant problem. First and foremost, there is no clear way to distinguish between a legitimate persuasion technique and a form of manipulation prohibited by the laws. Online platforms commonly justify their dark patterns as regular marketing techniques aimed at enhancing the engagement levels of customers.[12] As there is no universal definition of manipulation in the realm of digital technologies, it becomes impossible to identify whether certain manipulations are occurring on a website.

Secondly, regulatory agencies must consider proactive auditing measures for major digital interfaces. Such measures will include periodic reviews of adherence to relevant policies, the obligation to be open about manipulative actions, and algorithmic accountability[13].

Third, efforts towards fostering digital literacy among consumers are needed. Most individuals are unaware of how interface design can impact their decisions. An awareness campaign that highlights the existence of such manipulative tools could substantially increase protection[14].

There is also a need for interdisciplinary regulation in India through cooperation between consumer agencies, competition watchdogs, and data protection authorities. The nature of these manipulative practices makes isolated regulation difficult and ineffective.

What is more important is that much severer sanctions should be imposed on repeat offenders, who would be driven by greed and neglect. Currently, the dangers related to the application of dark patterns do not seem to be high. Lastly, there is a need for an established judicial approach that views manipulation as a substantial breach of consumer rights. Such an understanding would ensure that consumer autonomy and digital dignity play important roles in consumer regulation[15].

Additionally, the consent of consumers cannot be considered voluntary when obtained via complex processes designed to encourage the user to agree. Dark patterns involve consumers giving consent to share their personal information or to make recurring payments. Both of these elements run against the principle of informed consent in contracts[16]. Finally, there is an enforcement problem. Lack of coordinated efforts among institutions might result in regulatory fragmentation.[17]

 III. Improving Consumer Protection from Dark Patterns

It should be acknowledged that India’s regulation regarding the matter at hand has proven effective; however, there is room for improvement, especially with regards to enforcement measures. To begin with, one should note that inclusion of the concept of dark patterns in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019[18], via legislation would lead to clearer regulation of the matter at hand. Moreover, current solutions tend to be reactive rather than preventative.[19] The responsibility for proving manipulation typically lies on the victims, who have to initiate legal proceedings following any damages incurred. Low financial value associated with most online transactions will prevent many users from taking legal actions to address their grievances.

Conclusion

Dark patterns pose a severe danger to consumer freedom in the contemporary digital economy. This is because by playing on the consumers’ behavioral biases and creating confusion regarding the information presented to them, such tactics violate the basic tenets of consumer law. The Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023[20] formulated by the Indian authorities represent an important step in addressing the issue at hand. Still, despite the fact that the guidelines have been introduced, they continue to face many challenges in such aspects as enforcement, coordination, and uncertainty in the legal sphere. In other words, without legislative control, these measures may fail. Currently, the CCPA lacks resources to oversee numerous companies offering products online. Additionally, unlike consumer fraud, it is hard to prove the violation as dark patterns are implemented through complicated algorithms embedded in websites. Both the European Commission and the FTC have paid increasing attention to manipulative user interfaces through laws related to privacy and competition[21]. Nevertheless, even with well-developed regulatory systems, there is still difficulty in keeping pace with constantly emerging technologies. In addition, India has the problem of overlapping regulations. Manipulative user interfaces interact with various areas of law, such as consumer protection laws,[22] competition laws, data protection, and regulations for advertisement.

In summary, this article has shown that addressing dark patterns is not limited to prohibiting deceiving practices. Rather, it refers to acting and safeguarding the right of consumers to make an informed choice. To put it in simpler terms, all these components are critical aspects of a comprehensive approach.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TABLE OF LEGISLATION

• Consumer Protection Act 2019
• Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules 2020
• Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns 2023

TABLE OF CASES

• Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

BOOKS AND REPORTS

• Brignull H, Deceptive Design: User Interfaces Designed to Trick People (2023)
• Competition Commission of India, Market Study on E-Commerce in India (2020)
• Federal Trade Commission, Bringing Dark Patterns to Light (FTC Staff Report, 2022)
• OECD, Dark Commercial Patterns (OECD Digital Economy Papers No 336, 2022)
• European Commission, Guidance on the Interpretation and Application of Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices [2021] OJ C526/1

JOURNAL ARTICLES

• Dey A, ‘Dark Patterns in E-Commerce and Consumer Protection in India’ (2024) 6 Indian Journal of Law and Technology 88
• Pathak S, ‘Regulating Dark Patterns in India: Challenges and Solutions’ (2024) 12 Indian Journal of Law and Technology 45
• Sharma A, ‘Consent and Manipulation in Digital Contracts’ (2023) 5 NUJS Law Review 112

 

[1] Harry Brignull, Deceptive Design: User Interfaces Designed to Trick People (2023) https://www.deceptive.design accessed 25 May 2026.

[2] Central Consumer Protection Authority, Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023 (Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, 2023).

[3] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Dark Commercial Patterns (OECD Digital Economy Papers No 336, 2022).

[4] Arunima Dey, ‘Dark Patterns in E-Commerce and Consumer Protection in India’ (2024) 6 Indian Journal of Law and Technology 88.

[5] Harry Brignull, Deceptive Design: User Interfaces Designed to Trick People (n 1).

[6] Consumer Protection Act 2019, s 2(47).

[7] Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules 2020, rr 4–6.

[8] Central Consumer Protection Authority (n 2).

[9] Central Consumer Protection Authority, Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023 (Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, 2023).

[10] Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, ‘Government Notifies Guidelines for Prevention of Dark Patterns’ (Government of India Press Release, 30 November 2023).

[11] European Commission, Guidance on the Interpretation and Application of Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices [2021] OJ C526/1.

[12] Federal Trade Commission, Bringing Dark Patterns to Light (FTC Staff Report, September 2022).

[13] Shubham Pathak, ‘Regulating Dark Patterns in India: Challenges and Solutions’ (2024) 12 Indian Journal of Law and Technology 45.

[14] OECD (n 3).

[15] Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.

[16] Avinash Sharma, ‘Consent and Manipulation in Digital Contracts’ (2023) 5 NUJS Law Review 112.

[17] Competition Commission of India, Market Study on E-Commerce in India (2020).

[18] Consumer Protection Act 2019.

[19] Federal Trade Commission (n 11).

[20] Central Consumer Protection Authority (n 2).

[21] European Commission (n 10); Federal Trade Commission (n 11).

[22] OECD (n 3).