DARK PATTERNS: UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT

The guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns (2023)¹ defines dark patterns as deceptive design patterns, within a class of user-interface techniques, deliberately crafted to manipulate the decision-making of digital users.

Dark patterns are intentional user-interface designs created to subvert the decision-making of the consumer, often at the cost of user autonomy and informed consent, which amounts to unfair trade practices and violation of consumer rights. This practice can be observed in online advertising, where the ‘close’ or ‘exit’ button is designed to appear faint, obscured, or strategically misplaced. As a result, instead of closing the advertisement, the user inadvertently clicks on it and is redirected to promotional content. The outcome is manufactured consent, which the user never intended to give.

For instance, when a person tries to close an advertisement on a website, the ‘X’ or close button may be made so faint or poorly placed that instead of closing the ad, you end up clicking on it and opening the full advertisement. Whether or not you wished to view it, the platform has successfully compelled you to do so through this manipulative design.

Similarly, ‘Accept Cookies’ interfaces frequently employ this tactic by presenting a prominently highlighted ‘Accept All’ button, while the ‘Reject’ or ‘Manage Preferences’ options are hidden to significantly smaller, less visible locations. This design architecture consciously nudges the user towards acceptance, thereby undermining the principle of voluntary choice.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK OF DARK PATTERNS IN INDIA

Legal protection from ‘Dark Patterns’ in India has gradually evolved from general consumer protection principles to explicit recognition under statutory guidelines. Initially, the Information Technology Act, 2000, while providing safeguards for data protection and cybersecurity, did not expressly address manipulative user interface design.

The regulatory gap allowed deceptive digital practices to proliferate. Later, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“CPA”) marked a significant step by addressing unfair trade practices and misleading advertisements under Section 2 (47). The combined reading of Section 2 (41) and Section 2 (47) includes dark patterns under restrictive and unfair trade practices.

E-commerce platforms entice consumers through tools such as unfair methods, unfair practices, and deceptive practices. Section 94 of the CPA aids in the regulation of unfair trade practices of such a nature is section 94 of the CPA.

• Section 94 empowers the Central Government to undertake measures for the prevention of unfair trade practices in e-commerce, as well as protect the consumers’ rights as well as interests.

Further, the establishment of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (“CCPA”) under Section 17 (2) provided an institutional foundation to keep a proactive check on the e-commerce platforms.

However, dark patterns as a distinct category of manipulation were not directly articulated in the CPA, leaving interpretive uncertainties around whether online consent manipulation falls within the ambit of conventional unfair trade practices.

In 2023, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (“DPDPA”) was enacted to eliminate consent manipulation by mandating clear, specific, and informed consent of the consumer for processing personal data. Section 6(4) of the DPDPA protects the individual’s right to withdraw consent at any time, subject to the condition that withdrawal must be as easy as consent-giving. By using the power U/s 18 of the CPA, the Central Consumer Protection Authority issued Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns.

The Guidelines U/s 2(1)(e) define ‘dark patterns’ as any deceptive user-interface or user-experience design that misleads or subverts consumer choice, amounting to a misleading advertisement, unfair trade practice, or violation of consumer rights.

• Section 4 of the Guidelines prohibits all persons, including platforms, advertisers, and sellers, from engaging in any form of dark pattern practice.
• Section 5 of the guidelines stipulates prohibition of the practices listed in Annexure I shall constitute specified violations. Annexure I identifies 13 specific categories of dark patterns, including false urgency, basket sneaking, confirm shaming, forced action, subscription traps, interface interference, bait and switch, drip pricing, disguised advertisements, nagging, trick questions, SaaS billing practices, and rogue malware.

Identified Dark Patterns That Falls Under The Category Of Unfair Trade Practices:

1. Forced Action: deliberately making a consumer buy unrelated goods, share personal data, or sign up for additional services as a precondition to complete their intended transaction.
2. Nagging: constantly sending repeated, disruptive prompts or pop-ups that creates pressure upon users to complete unwanted actions or transactions.
3. Bait and Switch: advertising a particular outcome for a user action (e.g., availing a discount or product) but deceptively replacing it with an alternative outcome.
4. Subscription Traps: hidden traps that make cancelling paid subscriptions ambiguous, lengthy, or difficult for users to understand.
5. Drip Pricing: where the final payable price is revealed only gradually, with hidden charges cropping up later when the product is purchased.
6. Disguised Ads: advertisements designed to imitate news, user-generated content, or other neutral information to trick users into engaging with them.
7. Interface Interference: the manipulation of digital interfaces where certain information is highlighted while hiding or obscuring other relevant choices to misguide users.
8. SaaS Billing: an exploitative recurring billing practice in subscription-based software models that aim to extract continuous payments without adequate user clarity.
9. Trick Questions: deliberate use of confusing or ambiguous phrasing to misguide users into giving unintended responses.
10. Rogue Malware: deceptive tactics where false virus alerts mislead users into paying for fraudulent or harmful software downloads.
11. False urgency: online platforms making misleading claims about scarcity or popularity of a product.
12. Basket Sneaking: addition of unwanted items during checkout.
13. Confirm Shaming: use of discrediting language that pressures users into buying or continuing services against their preference.

On 07th June 2025, the regulatory stance was further strengthened by the direction ‘Advisory on Self-Audit of E-Commerce Platforms’² (2025), through which the Department of Consumer Affairs directed all the platforms not only to ensure their own compliance with the Guidelines, but also to extend accountability to sellers and third-party merchants hosted on their platform. Further, platforms have been advised to conduct self-audits within three months, declare themselves free of dark patterns, and institute consumer-centric design assessments.

The Guidelines were framed as an open-ended mechanism, permitting the CCPA to notify additional patterns as digital practices. This reflects an adaptive approach aimed at safeguarding consumer autonomy in a constantly shifting digital economy. While questions remain about enforcement capacity and interpretive boundaries, the codification of dark patterns within India’s regulatory framework marks a decisive step towards the consumers in the digital marketplace.

JUDICIAL OPINION ON DARK PATTERNS AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

The judiciary has recognized and clamp down upon manipulative digital practices that subvert consumer choices.

In Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors³., the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that the unauthorized use of a celebrity’s image and voice, designed to mislead consumer decision-making, constituted a form of dark pattern manipulation and fell squarely within the ambit of unfair trade practice. The Court emphasized that such practices not only distort consumer choice but also trade upon the goodwill of public figures without consent.

The Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) in Jatin Bansal v. M/S Amazon Reseller Services Pvt. Ltd. (CC/71/2023)⁴ by Order dated 12.03.2024, held Amazon guilty for falsely showcasing the products associated with the brand ‘Marc Jacobs’, which induced consumers into unintended purchases and observed that the platform is deliberately engaging in dark patterns by displaying deceptive search results and such conduct manipulates the consumer expectations and amount to deliberate deception.

Similarly, in the case of Ashwini Chawla v. Flipkart Internet Private Limited (CC/113/2023)⁵, the Chandigarh SCDRC, by Order dated 20.02.2024, expanded the scope of unfair digital practices by holding Flipkart, OnePlus, and its affiliated seller jointly liable for selling a defective mobile handset under the guise of a new product. The Ld. Commission observed that these practices mirrored the ‘Drip pricing’ and ‘false assurances’ as identified under dark patterns by the CCPA Guidelines.

Notably, despite Flipkart’s defence that it was merely an intermediary, the Ld. Commission held it directly accountable for failing to ensure a transparent and consumer-centric experience. The Ld. Commission recognized that alluring online advertisements accompanied by false assurances of quality are indicative of dark pattern practices in e-commerce.

CONCLUSION

The emergence and recognition of dark patterns signify a crucial milestone in advancing consumer protection in the digital era. These deceptive interface designs are no longer dismissed as simple annoyances but are recognized as unfair trade practices that infringe upon consumers’ fundamental rights to make free, informed, and voluntary choices online.

Legislation such as the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, laid the basic groundwork for protecting consumer rights and preventing unfair trade practices in India. The Government has strengthened this framework by issuing ‘Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns’, which prohibits 13 different types of dark patterns, ranging from false urgency and drip pricing to disguised advertisements and rogue malware, thereby ensuring consumer protection and ensuring fair digital marketplaces and has recently directed the e-commerce platforms and sellers to conduct regular self-audits and adopt consumer-centric design practices, promoting greater transparency, accountability, and trust in the digital ecosystem.

Courts and consumer forums have reinforced ‘dark patterns’ as ‘unfair trade practices’ by holding digital platforms responsible for using deceptive tactics that compromise consumer autonomy and undermine transparent commerce, thereby emphasising a firm stance against deceptive design practices in the digital marketplace.

Written By: Shubhangi Dengre (Associate)

1Central Consumer Protection Authority, Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023, issued under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Government of India, notified Nov. 30, 2023.

2 Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, “E-Commerce Platforms Urged to Self-Audit and Eliminate Dark Patterns: Centre,” Press Information Bureau, June. 07, 2025.

3 Anil Kapoor v. simply life & Ors [Manu/Deor/248558/2023]

4 Jatin Bansal v. M/S Amazon Reseller Services Pvt. Ltd., [CC/71/2023], State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh

5 Ashwini Chawla v. Flipkart Internet Private Limited [CC/113/2024] State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh