As India ushers in a new era of digital consumer protection, how far can the law go in reining in manipulative design practices online?
“Only 2 rooms left at this price.” “Hurry! Flash sale ends in 10 minutes!” “Are you sure you want to unsubscribe? You’ll miss out on amazing deals!”
These seemingly innocuous prompts pop up on screens across India every day — nudging users to act quickly, to conform, to stay hooked. But behind these digital messages lies a calculated science of manipulation. In today’s digital economy, where time on screen equates to money, and consumer data powers entire industries, these tactics aren’t just marketing tools — they’re legal and ethical flashpoints.
Welcome to the world of dark patterns, a term that sounds ominous because it is. These are user interface designs engineered to trick or mislead users into taking decisions they might not otherwise make — signing up for services, sharing data, or making purchases. Often cloaked under the guise of personalization or efficiency, dark patterns exploit the very psychology of users — and regulators are now beginning to push back.
The phrase “dark patterns” was coined in 2010 by British UX designer Harry Brignull, who described them as design features crafted not for usability or customer benefit, but for trickery and coercion. In the years since, as the digital ecosystem exploded globally, so did the proliferation of these patterns — becoming more refined, more data-driven, and more deeply embedded in digital infrastructure.
Dark patterns manifest in various forms — making cancellation difficult, disguising ads as legitimate content, hiding additional costs until the final step of a purchase, or simply using guilt-inducing language to discourage users from opting out of services. While a seasoned user may learn to identify these cues, for millions of new internet users in India — many from semi-urban and rural backgrounds — these patterns are invisible and overwhelming.
The stakes are high. According to data from IAMAI and Kantar, India had over 880 million internet users by mid-2023, with digital payments, e-commerce, and online content consumption seeing unprecedented growth. As this vast population migrates to digital spaces, their rights — particularly the right to autonomy, informed choice, and privacy — are increasingly coming under strain.
In November 2023, India made its first significant regulatory move against this subtle form of digital deception. The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), established under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, issued the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns — a move hailed by many as the beginning of India’s legal crackdown on manipulative design practices.
The guidelines define dark patterns as “any practices or deceptive design patterns using user interface or user experience interactions on any platform designed to mislead or trick users into doing something they originally did not intend or want to do.” They go on to enumerate 13 specific kinds of dark patterns—including nagging, bait-and-switch, confirm shaming, forced action, and misdirection — and provide an enforcement mechanism through monetary penalties and direction for compliance.
This regulatory intervention is more than a list of dos and don’ts — it is a fundamental shift in how law views user experience. Until now, the law focused on the product, service, or the transaction itself. With these guidelines, design becomes a legal subject. Interfaces are no longer just tools for engagement; they are grounds for accountability.
CCPA’s move positions India alongside jurisdictions like the EU and the US, where regulators have already begun classifying certain design tactics as unlawful. Yet, in India, where digital access is rapidly expanding but digital literacy remains uneven, the implications of these guidelines are far more consequential. They seek to protect not just informed urban users, but also those who may not fully understand the implications of the buttons they click or the permissions they grant.
While the CCPA guidelines attack the external — the visible nudges and design tricks — the recently enacted Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 delves into the internal architecture of digital platforms, focusing on data collection, processing, and consent.
At the heart of the DPDP Act is the principle that personal data must only be processed with the individual’s explicit, informed, and voluntary consent. However, this idea clashes head-on with the realities of how consent is obtained in the dark-patterned digital world. Pop-ups offering no real choice, pre-checked boxes, deliberately convoluted opt-out processes — all of these undermine the very foundation of genuine consent.
This disconnect raises an important question: If the architecture of choice is compromised, can consent ever be truly valid? Many legal experts argue that under the current regime, platforms that deploy dark patterns to nudge users into giving consent are already in violation of the DPDP Act’s core principles.
Further, the Act’s designation of certain companies as “Significant Data Fiduciaries” — based on volume and sensitivity of data handled — brings additional compliance requirements. For these entities, the legal risk is twofold: violating consent principles under the DPDP Act and engaging in deceptive interface practices under the CCPA guidelines.
Yet, the DPDP Act stops short of explicitly prohibiting dark patterns in its language. While its enforcement is still in the early stages, legal scholars believe that future amendments or clarificatory rules might have to close this gap — possibly drawing inspiration from how the EU’s GDPR has evolved to account for such manipulative practices in the guise of UX design.
Despite rising public awareness, legal precedents in India dealing with dark patterns remain limited. A handful of complaints have surfaced before consumer forums and commissions — many involving subscription renewals without explicit consent, deceptive pricing on e-commerce platforms, or misleading pop-ups that result in unintended purchases.
One such case involved a popular food delivery platform where consumers alleged that discount offers were misleading and final pricing included hidden delivery charges and convenience fees. While the forum acknowledged the unfair trade practice, it did not specifically classify the interface design as a dark pattern. This signals a key gap in enforcement: While the intention to mislead is being recognized, the medium of deception — the UI/UX design — is not yet being rigorously scrutinized in judicial forums.
Legal commentators believe this will soon change. The CCPA guidelines provide a framework to argue that deceptive interfaces constitute not just ethical breaches but violations of statutory duties.
Moreover, as consumer class actions and digital rights litigations become more sophisticated, courts will increasingly be asked to adjudicate not just on what was sold or consented to, but on how that transaction or consent was engineered.
India’s regulatory shift does not exist in isolation. In fact, the dark pattern debate has already gripped policymakers across the globe. Countries with mature data privacy regimes are actively investigating and penalizing companies for using deceptive design to subvert user choice.
In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been particularly vocal about its intent to target “manipulative design practices.” In June 2023, the FTC fined Amazon $25 million for using dark patterns to retain Prime subscribers by making cancellation exceedingly difficult. Similarly, gaming company Epic Games was penalized $245 million in 2022 for using deceptive interfaces in its Fortnite game to induce players, especially minors, into making accidental purchases.
The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) — an amendment to the already robust CCPA — went a step further by explicitly banning any interface that “has the effect of substantially subverting or impairing a consumer’s autonomy, decision-making, or choice.” This statutory language goes to the very heart of the issue: not just what the user agrees to, but whether they were nudged, coerced, or tricked into agreeing in the first place.
Europe, too, offers strong parallels. Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), valid consent must be “freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous.” Design elements that pressure users — such as making it harder to reject than accept cookies — have come under fire. Regulatory authorities in countries like France, Germany, and the Netherlands have fined major platforms for consent structures that employed psychological manipulation.
Perhaps the most detailed civil society response came from Norway, where the Norwegian Consumer Council launched an investigation into Google’s location tracking practices. Their report, titled Deceived by Design, accused Google of using misleading prompts and default settings that nudged users to allow data sharing. The report gained traction across the EU and led to coordinated actions against Google in multiple jurisdictions.
For India, these global developments offer more than inspiration — they offer a ready blueprint. The next step would be to not just replicate the language of foreign laws, but also to internalize their jurisprudential ethos: that interface design is not neutral, and therefore must be regulated with the same seriousness as product safety or financial disclosures.
The corporate sector’s initial response to the CCPA’s dark pattern guidelines ranged from cautious optimism to measured resistance. For many businesses, especially in the consumer internet space, these regulations meant revisiting the very foundations of their growth models — models built on prolonged user engagement, behavioral nudges, and data harvesting.
In-house legal teams across e-commerce, fintech, edtech, and streaming services were the first to respond. Terms like “UX compliance” and “design due diligence” became part of the regulatory vocabulary. According to a senior legal counsel at a leading Indian e-commerce platform, “We were always aware of persuasive design, but the guidelines changed the tone. Now our compliance checklist includes interface reviews — not just privacy policies or terms and conditions.”
Some platforms began investing in “ethics-by-design” — ensuring that design and product teams were trained to understand regulatory red flags. Cancel buttons were made more visible. Opt-out options were added to cookie banners. Consent requests became less aggressive and more transparent.
Yet, there is a fine line between genuine reform and cosmetic compliance. Several advocacy groups have flagged “compliance theatre” — where companies tweak just enough to pass legal muster but continue to exploit user inertia and confusion. “Changing the font of the cancel button doesn’t address the deeper issue,” says a digital rights expert from the Internet Freedom Foundation. “What we need is meaningful choice, not surface-level redesign.”
Moreover, industry bodies have expressed concerns about ambiguity in the guidelines. Terms like “nagging” or “misdirection” are context-sensitive, and platforms argue that without detailed illustrative standards or case law, enforcement risks being arbitrary. There are also murmurs about overreach — that too rigid a regulatory framework could stifle innovation, especially for smaller startups trying to scale.
While all consumer-facing platforms are theoretically subject to the CCPA’s guidelines, certain sectors are inherently more vulnerable — both in terms of exposure and potential liability.
The fintech sector, particularly digital lenders and wealth management apps, has seen a proliferation of subtle dark patterns — from pre-checked insurance add-ons to misleading repayment calculations. Given that financial decisions have long-term consequences, any manipulation of choice architecture in this sector has heightened legal and ethical implications.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has already issued detailed frameworks around fair lending, particularly in the context of digital lending apps. Now, combined with CCPA scrutiny, fintech players must walk a fine line between persuasive user onboarding and manipulative conversion tactics.
Dark patterns are most visible and widespread in e-commerce — from “limited stock” countdowns to buried return policies. With India’s e-retail market expected to cross $100 billion by 2026, the stakes are immense. Platforms like Flipkart and Amazon have made minor design changes post-guidelines, but consumer forums are beginning to see complaints that directly invoke the term “dark patterns.”
Auto-renewing subscriptions, free trials with complex cancellation, and upselling of unnecessary packages are rampant in OTT and edtech platforms. These sectors also cater to vulnerable demographics — children and students — raising concerns of psychological manipulation. A deceptive design that traps a parent into paying for a subscription they thought had ended is not just unethical, but potentially a violation of the CCPA’s code.
Arguably the most sensitive sector, digital health platforms hold not just user data but emotional leverage. Consent prompts for sharing health records, pre-filled consultation choices, and default opt-ins for services need closer regulatory attention — and yet, enforcement here is still largely absent.
One of the emerging challenges in regulating dark patterns is the jurisdictional overlap between regulators. While the CCPA is the torchbearer for consumer protection in this area, the implications of dark patterns touch upon privacy (DPDP Act), financial services (RBI), advertising (ASCI), and even competition law (CCI).
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), which oversees intermediaries and digital governance, also holds a key role in shaping what platforms can and cannot do with user interfaces. Yet, as of today, there is no unified digital fairness code that harmonizes these overlapping concerns.
The absence of a single digital conduct regulator makes enforcement piecemeal. A deceptive prompt on a fintech app could theoretically fall under four different regulators, each viewing the matter through a different lens. This regulatory fragmentation risks diluting accountability — or worse, letting serious infractions slip through the cracks.
Experts argue for the creation of an Inter-Regulatory Digital Conduct Task Force, one that draws on the expertise of CCPA, DPB, RBI, CCI, and MeitY, to create unified standards for digital platform behavior — both in terms of interface and data usage.
Wonderful – here’s the third and final part of your fully developed, magazine-style cover story. This section weaves in the constitutional dimension, explores the ethical design movement, outlines the path forward, and delivers a powerful closing statement fit for a cover story.
At its core, the dark pattern debate is not only about design or regulation — it is about dignity. In the Indian constitutional framework, the right to privacy is no longer a procedural right; it is a fundamental one. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court articulated privacy as intrinsic to the right to life and liberty under Article 21. Within that decision lies the seed of a broader conversation: what does digital autonomy truly mean in a society where individuals interact with the state, markets, and services through screens and clicks?
When a platform structures its interface to induce submission, hides options behind layers of complexity, or deploys emotion to trick users into compliance, it does more than just frustrate. It erodes the individual’s capacity to make free and informed choices. It subverts the idea of a free will — not by force, but by design.
Legal scholars have begun referring to this as the “architecture of autonomy.” If architecture can enhance liberty, it can just as easily constrain it. A dark pattern does the latter. And when design choices are allowed to do this unchecked, they start to infringe on constitutional protections.
This is why conversations around UI manipulation are beginning to show up not just in consumer commissions or tech policy forums, but in constitutional law classrooms and legal think tanks. Because at the end of the day, a manipulative click is a coerced act — and coercion is anathema to constitutional democracy.
Beyond compliance and penalties, there is an emerging philosophical question: What does ethical design look like in a digital-first economy?
The answer lies in a growing international movement toward human-centered design. Pioneered by technologists, behavioral economists, and ethicists, this movement calls upon product designers to align user interfaces with fairness, clarity, and empowerment — not conversion rates or retention curves.
Companies like Apple and Mozilla have adopted design standards that lean heavily on privacy-by-default and consent-by-choice principles. In Europe, several digital services now offer “consent dashboards” that allow users to customize data permissions with unprecedented granularity. In the US, the growing popularity of ad-free, subscription-based models is in part a pushback against manipulative advertising and data-driven design.
In India, the idea of ethical design is just beginning to percolate. Legal teams and design heads are having conversations they never had before. “What would this button look like if we weren’t trying to trick the user?” “How can we give them real choices without burying them in jargon?”
This is a cultural shift. But for it to be meaningful, ethics cannot remain an internal brand goal — it must be paired with enforceable legal standards. Otherwise, it risks becoming a hollow virtue signal.
The regulatory road ahead is both promising and challenging. The groundwork has been laid by the CCPA and the DPDP Act. But a mature digital society requires a layered and evolving approach.
First, enforcement must become visible. A handful of high-profile actions under the CCPA would go a long way in signaling seriousness to the ecosystem. Whether through fines, injunctions, or public notices, platforms need to see that deceptive design has real consequences.
Second, cross-regulatory clarity is essential. The government must facilitate structured coordination between consumer, privacy, financial, and competition regulators — ideally culminating in a unified code on digital fairness.
Third, judicial recognition of dark patterns must evolve. Courts must begin identifying manipulative UI/UX not just as poor design, but as a violation of statutory and constitutional rights. We need landmark rulings that move the jurisprudence beyond conventional unfair trade practices.
Fourth, users need education. A well-informed user is a powerful deterrent. Government and civil society must work together to launch digital literacy campaigns that help citizens identify and report dark patterns, just as they do spam or cyber fraud today.
Finally, the private sector must lead from the front. Instead of viewing dark pattern regulation as a compliance burden, it must be seen as a brand differentiator. Platforms that champion transparency and consent will build more durable user trust — a currency far more valuable than engagement metrics.
India stands at a critical juncture. It is one of the world’s fastest-growing digital economies, but also one of its most fragile when it comes to user awareness and regulatory enforcement. In this environment, every nudge, every prompt, every click matters.
The rise of dark patterns is a warning — that without oversight, the very tools designed to make life easier can become instruments of subtle coercion. But India’s legal system, with its new frameworks and growing consciousness, is finally beginning to respond.
This cover story is not just about what the law says, but about what the law must protect: choice, clarity, consent, and dignity. In a country where millions are discovering the internet for the first time, fairness must not be optional — it must be embedded in the interface itself.
As technology continues to shape human experience, let it do so with integrity. Because in the end, the right to click must also include the right not to be tricked.
www.grandmasters.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.rcls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.itlegalsummit.com | 8 Years & Counting
www.bfls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.maels.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.plcs.co.in | 8 Years & Counting
Copyright © 2020 Lex Witness - India's 1st Magazine on Legal & Corporate Affairs Rights of Admission Reserved
