INTRODUCTION
The digital economy’s explosive growth has completely changed how we shop and access services. Now, you can buy almost anything with a few clicks, compare prices instantly, and get what you want delivered straight to your door. Life feels more connected because e-commerce sites and apps are everywhere, making our daily routines easier and more flexible. But there’s a catch that’s not always obvious: dark patterns.
Dark patterns are sneaky tricks built into websites and apps. They’re designed to push you toward choices you wouldn’t normally make—like accidentally buying something, signing up for a subscription you don’t really want, or handing over your personal information without realizing it. Unlike outright scams, dark patterns are subtle. They don’t lie outright; instead, they take advantage of the way our brains work, the fact that we don’t always read the fine print, or simply that we trust the layout of the site.
What’s really frustrating is how hard these patterns are to spot. They’re woven into the everyday experience of browsing and buying online. Regulators struggle too—it’s tough to prove that a “helpful” feature actually tricks people into choices they didn’t mean to make. This puts consumers at a disadvantage. The balance of power between big digital companies and ordinary users keeps tipping in the wrong direction, especially as tech platforms grow more complicated and less transparent.
People around the world have started paying attention to this issue, and now, regulators are asking themselves whether current consumer protections go far enough. In India, the expansion of online shopping led to the same tough questions: Are our laws strong enough to keep up with these manipulative digital tactics?
In this blog, I’m going to dig into what dark patterns are, how they mess with our freedom to choose, and whether existing rules actually do anything to stop them looking closely at India’s legal system and keeping an eye on what’s happening globally.
UNDERSTANDING DARK PATTERNS
The term “dark patterns” was created by UX designer Harry Brignull to describe design strategies that put corporate interests ahead of honest consumer choices.[1] These tactics take advantage of cognitive biases, time pressures, and uneven information.
Dark patterns show up all over the place, each one sneaky in its own way. Take forced continuity, for example—they sign you up for subscriptions automatically, usually right after a free trial, and barely give you any warning. Cancelling turns into a hassle nobody asked for. Then there’s false urgency. You’ve probably seen those countdown timers or “only three left!” messages. They’re meant to make you panic and buy without thinking it through.
Hidden costs are another classic move. Suddenly, at the last step, you notice taxes, delivery fees, or other charges that weren’t mentioned at the start. You can’t make a real decision until the very end. Confirm shaming is just as bad, where they try to guilt you with stuff like, “No thanks, I don’t want to save money,” making you feel embarrassed about opting out.
Finally, there’s interface interference. That’s when the website messes with the way options are shown so it’s easy to pick what they want you to pick—not what you actually want. Buttons for their preferred choices get big and bright, while alternatives are tucked away or made confusing. It all adds up to a design that serves the company’s interests, not yours choice
These practices violate the principle of informed consent, which is central to consumer protection law.
IMPACT ON CONSUMER RIGHTS
Dark patterns really chip away at basic consumer rights—especially the protections guaranteed by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Take the right to information. People are supposed to get all the facts: clear, accurate details about what they’re buying or signing up for. But dark patterns mess with that. They hide important stuff, like sneaky subscription terms or extra charges, or just bury it behind a maze of confusing menus. So, instead of understanding what they’re agreeing to, consumers end up lost and uninformed.
And it’s not just about information—choice takes a hit, too. Platforms use tricks like pre-ticked boxes or attention-grabbing buttons to nudge people toward decisions that work out best for the company, not the customer. It’s subtle, sure, but it chips away at people’s freedom to actually choose for themselves. There’s also the right to protection from unfair trade practices—which is supposed to shield people from shady or dishonest business tactics. Dark patterns dodge this by blending ads into real choices or building interfaces that trick you into doing things you didn’t mean to. It definitely counts as unfair, but because it happens online and isn’t always obvious, it’s hard to spot and even harder to regulate.
Bottom line: dark patterns strip away consumer control and poke holes in the legal safeguards that are meant to protect people, especially now that technology keeps making these tricks easier to pull off.
Unlike regular misleading advertisements, dark patterns function at the design level, complicating enforcement and requiring new regulatory strategies that allow the consumers to not fully understand the framework of what it actually is.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN INDIA
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 2019
The main law governing consumer rights in India is the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (CPA 2019). This law defines unfair trade practices to include misleading representations, false advertisements, and deceptive actions[2].
Although it does not specifically mention dark patterns, their effects fit the definition of unfair trade practices. Section 2(47) of the Act provides a broad definition that allows regulators to tackle new forms of deception in online commerce.
The creation of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) under the Act is a significant step toward proactive enforcement.
GUIDELINES ON PREVENTION AND REGULATION OF DARK PATTERNS, 2023
The more and more sneaky tactics pop up in digital markets, the Indian Government stepped up with the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023[3].These rules call out things like fake urgency, forced choices, subscription traps, and ads hidden in plain sight — all tricks that mess with people when they’re online. By spelling out what counts as a dark pattern, the guidelines push for more openness and fair play between businesses and customers.
Honestly, this marks a big change in how consumer protection works. Instead of waiting for problems to show up and dealing with them after the fact, regulators are looking right at the way websites and apps are designed. They’re saying, sometimes the harm isn’t so obvious — it’s not just about the outright lies, but all those sneaky bits built into the interface that end up nudging or tricking users without them even realizing it.
JUDICIAL APPROACH IN INDIA
Indian courts have often interpreted consumer protection laws in favor of protecting consumer interests.
In Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd v Union of India, the Supreme Court criticized one-sided terms imposed on consumers, calling them unfair and unconscionable[4]. While this was not a digital case, the reasoning applies to dark patterns that take advantage of uneven bargaining power.
In Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd v Amway India Enterprises Pvt Ltd, the Delhi High Court highlighted the need for transparency and fairness in online commerce[5]. These judicial principles provide solid ground for tackling dark patterns through a purposeful interpretation of the law.
Further, in Lucknow Development Authority v M.K. Gupta, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of consumer protection by holding that even statutory authorities are accountable for unfair practices and deficiency in service.[6] The judgment highlighted that consumer protection laws must be interpreted broadly to ensure effective redressed against exploitation.
Additionally, in National Seeds Corporation Ltd v M. Madhusudhan Reddy, the Court reiterated that consumers must be protected against unfair and deceptive practices, even when such practices are not overtly fraudulent but still result in harm due to lack of transparency or misinformation.[7]
More recently, in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd v Brojo Nath Ganguly, the Supreme Court laid down the principle that unconscionable and unfair contract terms—especially those arising from unequal bargaining power—are against public policy.[8]This principle is particularly relevant in the digital age, where users often have little real choice but to accept pre-drafted terms shaped through manipulative design.
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
UNITED STATES
In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) actively works against dark patterns under its authority to stop unfair or misleading trade practices.
In FTC v Epic Games, the company was fined for deceptive interface designs that caused users, including minors, to make unintended purchases[9]. This case showed regulatory recognition of design manipulation as a way to exploit consumers.
EUROPEAN UNION
The Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) specifically ban manipulative user interface designs. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requires that consent must be freely given, clear, informed, and direct[10].
In Planet49 GmbH v Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that pre-ticked consent boxes violate consumer autonomy, reinforcing the rejection of deceptive design practices[11].
INTERSECTION WITH DATA PROTECTION LAW
Dark patterns not only manipulate economically; they also enable excessive data collection. Techniques like nudging users to accept cookies or share personal information blur the line between consent and coercion.
In India, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 requires that consent be free, informed, and specific[12]. Dark patterns that trick users into giving consent through misleading designs may violate data protection rules, suggesting a connection between regulatory areas.
REGULATORY AND ENFORCEMENT CHALLENGES
The Regulating dark patterns is tough, even though people are more aware of them now. The main problem? Designers keep coming up with new tricks to sway users, and laws just can’t keep up. Plus, it’s hard to say exactly what counts as manipulation. Not every persuasive design breaks the rules, so it’s tricky to draw a solid line between clever marketing and outright deception. That leaves regulators and businesses in a sort of limbo.
Things get even messier when you look at how these platforms operate globally. Companies don’t stick to one country, so they slip through the cracks. Every place has its own laws and ways of enforcing them, making it tough for authorities to tackle these issues consistently—especially when those platforms are based somewhere else.
Most people don’t even realize they’re being nudged by these dark patterns. When folks don’t know, they don’t complain, and that pretty much limits what legal measures can actually do.
All in all, it’s a tangled mess. Fixing it will take sharper regulations, better consumer education, and governments working together across borders.
Effective enforcement will need technical expertise, a mix of regulations, and ongoing monitoring of digital practices.
WAY FORWARD
To tackle dark patterns, laws need to call them out clearly as unfair trade practices. Right now, there’s a gap—lots of sneaky design tricks aren’t obvious misrepresentations, so they slide by under the radar. If the law spells out what counts as a dark pattern, there’s no more room for doubt. Regulators can go after bad actors directly, and companies get the message that manipulating users isn’t just shady—it’s illegal and comes with real consequences.
We also need rules that make digital platforms check and fix their designs before problems happen. Platforms shouldn’t wait to get caught; they should have to look at their interfaces and prove they’re not misleading or tricking anyone. This means showing how they present choices, skipping those sneaky pre-ticked boxes that push people into things, and making sure important info isn’t buried. If companies have to be up front from the start, users are less likely to get hurt and regulators don’t have to mop up afterward.
There’s more, though. Regulators need sharper tools and real technical know-how to keep up. Right now, they don’t always have enough power to check platforms properly, fine offenders, or enforce the rules in tech-heavy markets. Giving these agencies the expertise and authority to audit platforms and crack down fast means fewer loopholes for companies to slip through.
And, really, people need to know what to look out for. Most users don’t realize how digital designs can steer their choices—or that they’re being nudged at all. Teaching consumers what dark patterns look like through public campaigns or school programs helps them push back. Plus, easy complaint channels give them a way to fight back if they get trapped. A public that knows the game holds platforms accountable and helps keep the marketplace honest.
In India, working together between consumer protection bodies and data protection regulators will be essential.
CONCLUSION
Dark patterns are a modern form of consumer exploitation in the digital economy. By manipulating user behavior through misleading design, companies erode consumer autonomy and trust.
Although India has made valuable progress through legal changes and regulatory guidelines, effective enforcement is still a major challenge. As digital markets grow, consumer protection laws need to adapt to ensure that technological advancements do not compromise fairness, transparency, and informed choice.
A strong legal response to dark patterns will safeguard consumers and promote ethical digital commerce and long-term market integrity.
Author(s) Name: Abhishak Kumar (Lucknow University)
References:
[1] Harry Brignull, “Dark Patterns: Deception vs. Honesty in UI Design,”
[2] Consumer Protection Act 2019, s 2(47).
[3] Department of Consumer Affairs, Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns (2023).
[4] Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd v Union of India (2019) 8 SCC 416.
[5] Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd v Amway India Enterprises Pvt Ltd 2020 SCC OnLine Del 454.
[6] Lucknow Development Authority v M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243.
[7] National Seeds Corporation Ltd v M. Madhusudhan Reddy, (2012) 2 SCC 506.
[8] Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd v Brojo Nath Ganguly, (1986) 3 SCC 156.
[9] Federal Trade Commission v Epic Games Inc. (2022) FTC No 1923203.
[10] Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (General Data Protection Regulation).
[11]Planet49 GmbH v Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband (C-673/17) EU:C:2019:801.
[12] Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023.