Site icon Legal Vidhiya

DARK PATTERNS IN ONLINE SHOPPING AND CONSUMER DECEPTION

Admin
Spread the love

This Article is written by Manasi Yamgar of School of Law, MIT WPU, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.

ABSTRACT

As the digital marketplace continues to dominate consumer interactions, subtle forms of manipulation embedded within the design of online platforms have raised serious legal and ethical concerns. Termed dark patterns, these deceptive interface strategies exploit cognitive biases to mislead consumers into making involuntary decisions, ranging from unwanted purchases to unintentional data sharing. This paper explores the origin, classifications, and psychological underpinnings of dark patterns and critically evaluates their increasing use in India’s e-commerce ecosystem. Drawing upon consumer complaints, regulatory developments, case law, and comparative international perspectives, it argues that these practices violate the spirit of informed consent and fair trade. While existing frameworks such as the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Draft Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns (2023) provide a beginning, enforcement remains a challenge. This paper urges for clear statutory definitions, robust monitoring mechanisms, and heightened digital literacy to protect consumer autonomy in the age of algorithmic persuasion.

KEYWORDS

Dark patterns, consumer deception, e-commerce, user interface manipulation, cognitive bias, informed consent, Consumer Protection Act 2019, digital regulation, algorithmic persuasion, online consumer rights, India, Draft Guidelines 2023, digital literacy, unfair trade practices.

INTRODUCTION

In an increasingly digitized world, convenience has become synonymous with commerce. E-commerce platforms, fintech apps, and streaming services have redefined the consumer experience, streamlining processes, personalizing choices, and multiplying access. Yet, beneath this seamless user journey lies a manipulative undercurrent that is neither transparent nor benign.

Imagine walking into a store where, before you can even browse, you’re asked to hand over your personal information. Free samples? Only if you provide your credit card details. Every item you glance at flashes a warning “Only 2 left!”, while loudspeakers announce what others just bought. You’re guilt-tripped for refusing a discount with messages like, “No thanks, I prefer paying more.” At checkout, items you never selected appear in your cart, and even after leaving, you’re bombarded with calls to complete abandoned purchases. Sounds absurd? Yet, this is the digital reality millions face daily when shopping online.

Dark patterns are not just poor design, they are deceptive and manipulative User Interface (UI) and User Experience (UX) design techniques crafted not to inform, but to coerce, mislead, or pressure users into making decisions they never truly intended. From false urgency and hidden costs to forced subscriptions and privacy intrusions, these tactics exploit well-documented cognitive biases to serve business interests at the cost of consumer autonomy.

India’s digital ecosystem, with over 900 million users expected by the end of 2025, many of them first-time internet users, is particularly vulnerable.[1] Consumers engage with labyrinthine interfaces that often camouflage hidden fees, obstruct opt-outs, collect personal data, and trigger fear-of-missing-out (FOMO) behaviours through urgency cues. A report by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) revealed that 52 of 53 leading Indian digital platforms employ at least one form of dark pattern.[2] Globally, watchdogs such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the United States, OECD, and Choice Australia have similarly flagged the widespread use of these deceptive practices and their systemic harm.[3]

Within India, although the Consumer Protection Act, 2019[4] contains provisions that indirectly cover some of these practices, it was not until the release of the Draft Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns (2023)[5] that the government formally recognized and attempted to define the issue. This article seeks to explore the anatomy of dark patterns, distinguish them from persuasive yet ethical design, assess their legal implications, and examine India’s evolving response in comparison to global regulatory efforts. In doing so, it underscores the urgent need to safeguard consumer choice, autonomy, and trust in the digital marketplace.

UNDERSTANDING DARK PATTERNS

The term “dark patterns” was first introduced by Harry Brignull in 2010 to describe design choices in digital interfaces that benefit the platform by exploiting human psychology at the cost of consumer welfare.[6] Unlike persuasive design, which seeks to guide users ethically, dark patterns manipulate consumers by leveraging cognitive biases, time pressure, and information asymmetry.

The OECD defines dark patterns as “interface structures that distort user autonomy, often leading to outcomes the user did not consciously choose.”[7] These deceptive structures are embedded in User Interface (UI) and User Experience (UX) designs, impacting not only individual decisions but also the integrity of the digital economy.

A variety of dark patterns are frequently encountered by consumers across e-commerce, fintech, and app-based platforms. Some of the most prevalent include:

  1. Sneaking: Concealing crucial cost information until the final step (e.g., hidden service or handling fees).
  2. Confirm shaming: Guilt-inducing language to deter opt-outs. For example, a shoe retailer using the phrase, “No thanks, I prefer to pay more!” to discourage unsubscribing.[8]
  3. Roach Motel: Easy to subscribe, extremely difficult to cancel (e.g., OTT platforms requiring multi-step cancellations).
  4. Disguised Ads: Ads designed to look like editorial content, tricking users into accidental clicks.
  5. Forced Continuity: Free trials that silently auto-renew into paid subscriptions without proper alert or consent.
  6. Data Grabs: Collecting more information than necessary, often via pre-ticked checkboxes and obscure privacy policies.
  7. False Scarcity and Activity Cues: “Only 1 left!” or “500 people just bought this!” –  often unverifiable and algorithmically generated.

As per the Consumer Policy Research Centre (Australia), over 83% of Australians admitted to losing money, data control, or making unintended decisions due to such patterns.8

Dark patterns work because they are designed around predictable psychological shortcuts. Concepts from behavioural economics, like loss aversion, status quo bias, and social proof, are used to trigger System 1 (impulsive) thinking over System 2 (rational) decision-making.[9]

Take for example the “scarcity cue”- when a product page shows “Only 2 left at this price!” –  users experience an urgency based on fear of missing out, often overriding rational consideration. Similarly, pop-ups offering discounts or demanding immediate action hijack user attention, creating cognitive fatigue and pushing hasty decisions.

The FTC, in its investigation of dark patterns, concluded that they pose a threat not only to consumer welfare but to fair market competition, as ethical businesses are disadvantaged by manipulative rivals.[10]

India’s experience with dark patterns reflects a broader systemic challenge. A study by the Lawful Legal Journal found that online platforms such as MakeMyTrip, Swiggy, and Netflix India employed techniques such as false discounting, drip pricing, and deliberately obstructive cancellation routes.[11] Additionally, online lending apps have been flagged for misleading approval processes, hiding exorbitant interest rates and fees behind opaque consent forms.

The Ministry of Consumer Affairs, in response, released Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023, which define dark patterns as “any design interface that misleads or tricks users into doing something they would not have otherwise done intentionally.”[12]  However, enforcement remains weak, with consumers unaware of their rights and regulators lacking the digital forensic tools to audit UI/UX schemes.

DARK PATTERNS IN THE INDIAN PERSSPECTIVE

India’s digital commerce boom has made it one of the fastest-growing e-commerce markets globally, expected to cross $200 billion by 2026. However, this rapid expansion has come with an undercurrent of concern: the widespread use of dark patterns. With over 900 million internet users projected by 2025—many of them first-time or digitally illiterate consumers—the implications of deceptive UI/UX practices are not merely theoretical; they are urgent, widespread, and increasingly dangerous.[13]

The presence of dark patterns in India is not confined to a niche or limited set of services; they cut across multiple verticals:

According to the ASCI’s 2023 Report, over 98% of digital platforms assessed were found to use at least one form of manipulative pattern, raising serious questions about regulatory oversight and user protection.[16]

The Indian government has begun acknowledging the threat. In 2023, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs issued Draft Guidelines for the Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, becoming one of the first countries to propose a formal framework.[17] These guidelines define dark patterns as: “Any practice or deceptive design pattern using UI/UX interactions on any platform designed to mislead or trick users into doing something they did not intend or want to do.“

The document classifies several types of dark patterns, including false urgency, bait-and-switch, confirm shaming, nagging, forced action, and disguised advertisements.[18]

The 17-member task force, constituted to enforce these guidelines, aims to strengthen the enforcement architecture by working closely with platforms, technical auditors, and civil society groups. However, these efforts remain in the nascent stage, no penalties enforced yet and low consumer awareness at ground level.

For Indian consumers, particularly those accessing digital services in regional languages or on low-end devices, the impact of dark patterns is disproportionately severe. Deceptive default settings, pre-ticked boxes, hard-to-navigate cancellation systems, and disguised ads can lead to unwanted purchases or subscriptions, unconscious data sharing, diminish consumer trust in digital systems and may prevent the assertion of legitimate consumer rights under Indian law.

Moreover, as platforms increasingly deploy AI and machine learning to personalize interfaces, these dark patterns are becoming harder to detect, more adaptive, and more deeply embedded in the digital architecture itself.[19]

As journalist Deepak Mehta aptly noted in The Times of India: “These aren’t just clever nudges. They are algorithmic traps masquerading as user choice.”[20]

LEGAL FRAMEWORK & ENFORCEMENT IN INDIA

Despite the mounting concerns, India’s legal framework addressing dark patterns remains fragmented. While several provisions indirectly deal with aspects of consumer deception, there is no single, consolidated law that directly addresses dark UI practices.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 serves as the principal legislation safeguarding consumers in India. Section 2(47) of the Act defines unfair trade practices, which include misleading representations, concealment of material facts and charging deceptive prices.

Under this definition, many dark patterns, those involving misleading urgency, hidden charges, and bait-and-switch tactics, can be construed as violations.[21] Additionally, the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has been empowered to initiate class actions and impose penalties on errant e-commerce players.

However, the challenge lies in proving intent, especially when the deceptive design is embedded subtly in code or interface logic.

The IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 impose responsibilities on intermediaries, including transparency obligations and grievance redressal mechanisms.[22] While not directly aimed at UI design, these rules require platforms to provide clear terms of service.  Further establish a mechanism to address consumer grievances and ensure no content or service is misleading or harmful.

Dark patterns, especially when they lead to unwanted purchases or data collection, can arguably be brought under these obligations. However, enforcement has been weak, and no dark pattern-specific cases have yet been adjudicated under these rules.

The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 specifically mandate Transparent pricing, no cancellation penalty unless expressly communicated and display of all charges up front. These rules are a promising tool to counter dark patterns like sneaking, drip pricing, and false scarcity. Yet, consumer complaints have risen, indicating either non-compliance or lack of enforcement by regulators such as the CCPA and MeitY.[23]

The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has also released voluntary Advertising Guidelines on Dark Patterns in digital promotions. While not binding, these guidelines: Prohibit manipulative urgency messages, require disclosure of sponsored content and call for clear opt-in mechanisms for subscriptions and data use.

These are complemented by the 2023 Draft Guidelines for Dark Patterns, which, once notified, could become enforceable under the Consumer Protection Act. The guidelines also suggest penal consequences for repeated violations, though exact sanctions are still under deliberation.[24]

CASE LAWS AND REGULATORY ACTIONS

While India’s legal and regulatory framework for addressing dark patterns is still emerging, judicial trends and regulatory interventions, both domestically and internationally, have begun to shape the enforcement narrative. Courts and consumer protection authorities have recognized dark patterns as unfair trade practices, though not always under that explicit terminology.

INDIAN JURISPRUDENCE AND REGULATORY COMPLAINTS:

In India, while no landmark Supreme Court ruling has yet directly ruled on “dark patterns” as a defined legal issue, several cases and regulatory actions provide a framework for interpretation.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) initiated a probe against MakeMyTrip and GoIbibo for alleged anti-competitive practices and price manipulation.[25] The complaint alleged false discounting and misleading representations, typical of bait-and-switch and drip pricing patterns. Though the CCI examined the issue from a competition lens, it opened the door to scrutinize interface-level design abuse.

Numerous complaints before consumer forums have surfaced against Zomato’s Gold membership and Swiggy Super, where users were enticed with offers but later faced restrictions and non-transparent renewal clauses. These complaints are indicative of forced continuity and roach motel patterns, where the sign-up is easy but cancellation is obstructively layered.[26]

The Delhi High Court examined allegations against ride-hailing services for employing deceptive dynamic pricing. Though not labelled as dark patterns, the non-transparent surge models closely resemble disguised pricing and sneaking, especially when the full fare is only revealed post-booking.[27]

CASE STUDY FROM LAWFUL LEGAL JOURNAL:

An insightful paper by Asst. Prof. Dimple Kishnani, published on Lawful Legal, discusses several cases underlining the legal implications of deceptive UI practices:

In numerous complaints reported to the Reserve Bank of India, consumers found themselves agreeing to high-interest microloans through apps that used pre-ticked boxes, misleading approval flows, and hidden terms. These constitute textbook examples of data grabs and trick questions.[28]

Platforms often pre-select additional warranty coverage or cross-sell products at checkout without consumer opt-in. As cited in the paper, Appliances Online was found to auto-add a $160 warranty during checkout, without express consent. While the cited case refers to Australian platforms, Indian platforms are reported to use similar tactics, warranting domestic scrutiny under CPA, 2019.

These examples underscore how regulatory ambiguity allows subtle forms of exploitation to persist in the Indian context.

GLOBAL REGULATORY ACTIONS:

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) imposed a record $245 million fine on Epic Games for using deceptive interfaces in Fortnite that tricked players into unintended in-game purchases.[29] This landmark decision recognized interface manipulation as a form of consumer deception under US law.

In 2020, the European Commission forced Booking.com to cease its use of false urgency tactics, including countdown timers and deceptive stock warnings. The EU’s consumer protection framework treats such practices as aggressive commercial practices in violation of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.[30]

ROLE OF ASCI AND CCPA IN INDIA:

The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) has proactively identified and flagged digital advertisements that use disguised content as native editorial, misleading discounts and pre-checked data sharing options.

Although non-binding, ASCI’s guidelines have been used to warn advertisers and nudge platforms into self-regulation. On the other hand, the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), empowered under CPA 2019, has the statutory mandate to investigate and penalize unfair trade practices. However, its action on dark patterns has so far been limited to issuing advisories.

ETHICAL, POLICY, AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The use of dark patterns raises critical ethical questions that go beyond legality. At the heart of the issue is user autonomy. Platforms often argue that these tactics are “industry standards” or “necessary for conversion.” However, such justifications sidestep the moral responsibility to respect informed consent.

As highlighted in reports by the Consumer Policy Research Centre (Australia) and OECD, dark patterns override consumer choice by preying on impulsivity, confusion, or social pressure.[31] Ethical design, by contrast, empowers users to make voluntary and informed choices, even if those choices don’t favour the platform’s profit model.

The impact of dark patterns is disproportionately higher on the first-time users, non-English speakers and low-income smartphone users. With digital services increasingly determining access to banking, healthcare, and public utilities, deceptive interfaces become tools of digital exclusion, not just commercial trickery.

Big tech firms often hide behind legal ambiguity while deploying dark patterns that have been A/B tested to perfection. The responsibility, however, lies in shifting from “conversion metrics” to “consumer-centric metrics”, where transparency, fairness, and usability are prioritized. As the OECD Blog (2024) rightly puts it: “Ethical UX design is not the absence of friction, but the presence of freedom.”[32]

WAY FORWARD: POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND REFORMS:

Tackling the menace of dark patterns requires multilayered intervention, from legislation and enforcement to industry accountability and user awareness. While India has taken notable first steps, particularly through the Draft Guidelines on Dark Patterns (2023), much remains to be done.

India must move beyond draft guidelines and codify dark patterns as a defined category of deceptive practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Drawing from global frameworks such as the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the FTC’s enforcement model, legislation should classify dark patterns as: Unfair trade practices, Misrepresentation and Consent manipulation. This will empower regulators like the CCPA, MeitY, and CCI to initiate action under a concrete legal framework.

Digital platforms must be subject to mandatory UI/UX audits by independent design ethics boards or certified agencies. These audits should assess: Default settings, Subscription flows, Checkout designs and Data consent structures. Inspired by OECD recommendations, platforms should be required to publish transparency reports on user-facing design architecture and changes, especially when affecting consumer choices.

Regulators must be equipped with technical tools and expertise to investigate dark pattern practices. This includes setting up a Digital Practices Investigation Unit. Further collaborating with design and behavioural science experts and imposing graduated penalties for non-compliance. Regulatory tools like ASCI’s digital complaint platform must be promoted more vigorously, and enforcement outcomes should be made public to enhance deterrence.

Users, especially those in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities, must be made aware of dark pattern strategies through: Consumer awareness campaigns, Inclusion of dark pattern detection in digital literacy curricula and public service messaging in regional languages. As highlighted in ForumIAS, a digitally aware consumer is the first line of defence against exploitative practices.

A self-regulatory design code should be developed collaboratively between industry and government. This would define red lines in user experience design, encourage ethical defaults (opt-in over opt-out) and recognize and reward platforms that commit to consumer-first design. This echoes the philosophy stated in Outlook Business, that platforms must evolve “from manipulation to meaningful engagement.”

CONCLUSION

The digital economy has ushered in an era of unprecedented convenience, but also invisible manipulation. Dark patterns, by design, exploit the grey space between law and interface, nudging users toward actions that benefit the platform over the person. In a country like India, where millions are new to digital ecosystems, the harm is not just individual, it is systemic.

While the Draft Guidelines (2023) mark a welcome step, they must be followed by statutory backing, technical enforcement, and wide-scale consumer empowerment. Legal definitions alone cannot undo manipulative defaults, what is needed is a cultural shift in how digital businesses perceive user autonomy.

As India continues to embrace digital growth, it must do so without compromising on dignity, fairness, and freedom of choice. The future of commerce is not just about clicks; it’s about consent.

REFERENCES

  1. India’s Evolving Framework for the Regulation of Dark Patterns, BAR & BENCH, https://www.barandbench.com/view-point/indias-evolving-framework-for-the-regulation-of-dark-patterns (last visited July 14, 2025).
  2. Advertising Standards Council of India, Dark Patterns Study Report, ASCI (2023), https://ascionline.in/images/pdf/dark-patterns-study.pdf.
  3. Deceptive Dark Patterns Explainer, CHOICE AUSTRALIA, https://www.choice.com.au/consumers-and-data/data-collection-and-use/how-your-data-is-used/articles/deceptive-dark-patterns-explainer (last visited July 14, 2025).
  4. Six Dark Patterns Used to Manipulate You When Shopping Online, OECD BLOG (Sept. 2024), https://www.oecd.org/en/blogs/2024/09/six-dark-patterns-used-to-manipulate-you-when-shopping-online.html (last visited July 14, 2025).
  5. Consumer Protection Act, 2019, INDIA CODE (2019)
  6. Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Draft Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023, GAZETTE OF INDIA (India).
  7. ForumIAS, Dark Patterns Explained – Pointwise, https://forumias.com/blog/dark-patterns-explained-pointwise/ (last visited July 14, 2025).
  8. Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2011).
  9. Bringing Dark Patterns to Light, FED. TRADE COMM’N (Dec. 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/epic-games-pay-520-million-settle-ftc-allegations (last visited July 14, 2025).
  10. Dimple Kishnani, Dark Patterns: Defeating Legal Expectations in E-Commerce, LAWFUL LEGAL (2023), https://lawfullegal.in/dark-patterns-defeating-in-e-commerce-legal-expectations-and-consumer-protection/.
  11. Jenn McMillen, Who Uses Dark Patterns? A Breakdown of E-commerce Bad Practices, FORBES (Mar. 27, 2024), https://www.forbes.com/sites/jennmcmillen/2024/03/27/who-uses-dark-patterns-a-breakdown-of-e-commerce-bad-practices/. (last visited July 14, 2025).
  12. Lawful Legal, Dark Patterns in E-Commerce: Defeating Legal Expectations, LAWFUL LEGAL (2023), https://lawfullegal.in/dark-patterns-defeating-in-e-commerce-legal-expectations-and-consumer-protection/. (last visited July 14, 2025).
  13. Advertising Standards Council of India, Dark Patterns Study Report (2023), https://www.ascionline.in/images/pdf/dark-patterns-study.pdf. (last visited July 14, 2025).
  14. Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Draft Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023, GAZETTE OF INDIA (India). (last visited July 14, 2025).
  15. Dark Pattern Guidelines: Govt Warns E-Commerce Platforms to Comply or Face Action, TIMES OF INDIA BLOG, (July 2023), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/digital-mehta/dark-pattern-guidelines-govt-warns-e-commerce-platforms-to-comply-or-face-action/. (last visited July 14, 2025).
  16. Why E-Commerce Feels So Manipulative – The Psychology of Dark Patterns Explained, OUTLOOK BUSINESS (Apr. 2024), https://www.outlookbusiness.com/start-up/explainers/why-e-commerce-feels-so-manipulative-the-psychology-of-dark-patterns-explained (last visited July 14, 2025)
  17. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, G.S.R. 139(E), MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, GAZETTE OF INDIA (Feb. 25, 2021) (India).
  18. Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, G.S.R. 462(E), MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION, GAZETTE OF INDIA (July 23, 2020) (India). 
  19. Advertising Standards Council of India, Dark Patterns Study Report (2023), https://www.ascionline.in/images/pdf/dark-patterns-study.pdf.
  20. Competition Comm’n of India, Case No. 14 of 2019 – MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. GoIbibo & Ors., https://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/14-of-2019.pdf (last visited July 14, 2025).
  21. Union of India v. Ola & Uber, W.P.(C) 6485/2016 (Del. HC).
  22. Federal Trade Commission, FTC v. Epic Games: Epic to Pay $520 Million Over Allegations of Privacy Violations and Dark Patterns, Press Release (Dec. 19, 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/epic-games-pay-520-million-settle-ftc-allegations.
  23. European Commission, Booking.com Consumer Complaint Resolution (2020), https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/consumers.

[1] India’s Evolving Framework for the Regulation of Dark Patterns, BAR & BENCH, https://www.barandbench.com/view-point/indias-evolving-framework-for-the-regulation-of-dark-patterns (last visited July 14, 2025).

[2] Advertising Standards Council of India, Dark Patterns Study Report, ASCI (2023), https://ascionline.in/images/pdf/dark-patterns-study.pdf.

[3] Deceptive Dark Patterns Explainer, CHOICE AUSTRALIA, https://www.choice.com.au/consumers-and-data/data-collection-and-use/how-your-data-is-used/articles/deceptive-dark-patterns-explainer (last visited July 14, 2025). Six Dark Patterns Used to Manipulate You When Shopping Online, OECD BLOG (Sept. 2024), https://www.oecd.org/en/blogs/2024/09/six-dark-patterns-used-to-manipulate-you-when-shopping-online.html (last visited July 14, 2025).

[4] Consumer Protection Act, § 2(47), No. 35 of 2019, INDIA CODE (2019)

[5] Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Draft Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023, GAZETTE OF INDIA (India).

[6] Harry Brignull, Dark Patterns, DARK PATTERNS, https://www.darkpatterns.org/ (last visited July 14, 2025).

[7] Six Dark Patterns Used to Manipulate You When Shopping Online, OECD BLOG (Sept. 2024), https://www.oecd.org/en/blogs/2024/09/six-dark-patterns-used-to-manipulate-you-when-shopping-online.html (last visited July 14, 2025).

[8] ForumIAS, Dark Patterns Explained – Pointwise, https://forumias.com/blog/dark-patterns-explained-pointwise/ (last visited July 14, 2025).

[9] Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2011).

[10] Bringing Dark Patterns to Light, FED. TRADE COMM’N (Dec. 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/epic-games-pay-520-million-settle-ftc-allegations (last visited July 14, 2025).

[11] Dimple Kishnani, Dark Patterns: Defeating Legal Expectations in E-Commerce, LAWFUL LEGAL (2023), https://lawfullegal.in/dark-patterns-defeating-in-e-commerce-legal-expectations-and-consumer-protection/.

[12] Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Draft Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023. (last visited July 14, 2025).

[13] India’s Evolving Framework for the Regulation of Dark Patterns, BAR & BENCH, https://www.barandbench.com/view-point/indias-evolving-framework-for-the-regulation-of-dark-patterns (last visited July 14, 2025). (last visited July 14, 2025).

[14] Jenn McMillen, Who Uses Dark Patterns? A Breakdown of E-commerce Bad Practices, FORBES (Mar. 27, 2024), https://www.forbes.com/sites/jennmcmillen/2024/03/27/who-uses-dark-patterns-a-breakdown-of-e-commerce-bad-practices/. (last visited July 14, 2025).

[15] Lawful Legal, Dark Patterns in E-Commerce: Defeating Legal Expectations, LAWFUL LEGAL (2023), https://lawfullegal.in/dark-patterns-defeating-in-e-commerce-legal-expectations-and-consumer-protection/. (last visited July 14, 2025).

[16] Advertising Standards Council of India, Dark Patterns Study Report (2023), https://www.ascionline.in/images/pdf/dark-patterns-study.pdf. (last visited July 14, 2025).

[17] Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Draft Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023, GAZETTE OF INDIA (India). (last visited July 14, 2025).

[18] Dark Pattern Guidelines: Govt Warns E-Commerce Platforms to Comply or Face Action, TIMES OF INDIA BLOG, (July 2023), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/digital-mehta/dark-pattern-guidelines-govt-warns-e-commerce-platforms-to-comply-or-face-action/. (last visited July 14, 2025).

[19] Why E-Commerce Feels So Manipulative – The Psychology of Dark Patterns Explained, OUTLOOK BUSINESS (Apr. 2024), https://www.outlookbusiness.com/start-up/explainers/why-e-commerce-feels-so-manipulative-the-psychology-of-dark-patterns-explained (last visited July 14, 2025)

[20] Id.

[21] Consumer Protection Act, § 2(47), No. 35, Acts of Parliament, INDIA CODE 2019 (India).

[22] Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, G.S.R. 139(E), MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, GAZETTE OF INDIA (Feb. 25, 2021) (India).

[23] Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, G.S.R. 462(E), MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION, GAZETTE OF INDIA (July 23, 2020) (India).

[24] Advertising Standards Council of India, Dark Patterns Study Report (2023), https://www.ascionline.in/images/pdf/dark-patterns-study.pdf.

[25] Competition Comm’n of India, Case No. 14 of 2019 – MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. GoIbibo & Ors., https://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/14-of-2019.pdf (last visited July 14, 2025).

[26] Lawful Legal, supra note 15.

[27] Union of India v. Ola & Uber, W.P.(C) 6485/2016 (Del. HC).

[28] Dimple Kishnani, Dark Patterns: Defeating Legal Expectations in E-Commerce, LAWFUL LEGAL (2023), https://lawfullegal.in/dark-patterns-defeating-in-e-commerce-legal-expectations-and-consumer-protection/.

[29] Federal Trade Commission, FTC v. Epic Games: Epic to Pay $520 Million Over Allegations of Privacy Violations and Dark Patterns, Press Release (Dec. 19, 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/epic-games-pay-520-million-settle-ftc-allegations.

[30] European Commission, Booking.com Consumer Complaint Resolution (2020), https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/consumers.

[31] Choice Australia, supra note 4.

[32] OECD, supra note 6.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version