INTRODUCTION
Children of today’s digital age are growing up in an environment where digital technologies form an integral part of their day-to-day lives[1]. Online learning websites, applications, and online communication platforms have expanded access to information and offered new opportunities for learning and engagement[2]. The increasing involvement of children in digital spaces has resulted in increased influence of algorithm-driven platforms in shaping the content and experience that children have in digital environments. While these technologies offer a lot of advantages, they make it difficult for parents and educators to monitor children’s online activities and protect the rights of children.[3]
With concerns about the privacy, safety, and welfare of children and increasing role of algorithms in children’s education and future becoming greater by the day, there is an urgent need for effective legal safeguards[4].
This blog seeks to examine the impact of algorithm-driven digital platforms on children’s online experiences and assesses if existing legal frameworks in India are sufficient to deal with these new challenges.[5]
IMPORTANCE OF ALGORITHMIC MANIPULATION
The social media platforms have adopted complex algorithms that aim at curating their content and encouraging the user to engage with it [6]on their platform. Algorithms act as a means of ensuring increased user engagement through provision of content that matches the user’s past behavior and preferences[7].
The social media platforms have not just remained entertainers but have emerged as sources for learning, news, communication and business purposes. It is very important for us to understand the impact of these algorithms because these algorithms have the capacity to determine what the users see[8].
ASPECTS OF DESIGN THAT ENCOURAGE MANIPULATION
- Recommendation Algorithms: Complex machine learning algorithms based on engagement measures such as duration of watching videos/images, likes, shares and comments. [9]
- Autoplay: It is a function that automatically plays the next video, song, or episode without requiring any input from the user, thus promoting continued usage.[10]
- Dark Patterns: According to the Advertising Standards Council of India, Dark Pattern is defined as a user interface which either misleads or influences users into making decisions which are against their own interests[11]. Social media sites have currently started using chatbots as well as interfaces which influence users to continuously engage through different forms of manipulation[12].
EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN INDIA
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
- Article 21 guarantees the rights to life and liberty and has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of India as including the right to privacy[13]. However, such a right is not absolute, and any restriction imposed on such a right shall be subject to the test of legality, necessity, and proportionality. [14]
- Article 15(3) authorizes the State powers to make provisions for women and children. Article 15(3) is an exception to the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 15(1) and 15(2). Consequently, it enables legislation for children’s welfare[15].
- Article 39(e) provides for protection of the health and strength of workers and the tender age of children. No person should be made to do work that is unsuitable to his age or strength because of economic necessity[16].
- Article 39(f) makes it a policy aim to ensure that childhood and youth are protected from exploitation and neglect [17]both morally and materially.
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019 (DARK PATTERN REGULATION)
- Under Section 18 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has issued the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Pattern, 2023.[18]
- The Guidelines define of “dark pattern” as any deceptive design practice that manipulates or misleads consumer choice.
- Section 3 of the guidelines indicates that these guidelines apply to all platforms, advertisers, and sellers.
- Section 5 prohibits the usage of any dark pattern, and any platform involved in such activities will be accountable for the same.
JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT
Indian courts have consistently emphasized the need to protect the fundamental rights of the children[19]. These decisions provide an important constitutional foundation for regulating AI-driven digital platforms. As per the Supreme Court judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) Case, the Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right, which comes within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution and laid down constitutional requirements governing restrictions on the right to privacy, including legality, legitimate State aim and proportionality[20]. This principle becomes increasingly important when the personal data of children is collected, processed, and classified in an AI-driven system.
Further, in the case of Sheela Barse v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India restates the obligation of the State towards the protection of rights and welfare of the children[21]. Although this case is unrelated to digital technologies, it provides an important constitutional foundation for formulating child-safe technology design guidelines.
REGULATORY GAP: WHAT IS MISSING FROM THE CURRENT REGULATIONS?
Transparency is a characteristic of algorithms that provides that the automated tools used in making decisions are transparent, understandable, and accountable[22]. Concerning cybersecurity, it means that it is ensured that the process of work in AI cybersecurity systems is tested, approved and explained in understandable way to all concerned parties. However, in spite of these requirements, many digital platforms use ambiguous algorithmic systems and misleading interface designs. Behind the bright icons and attractive alerts, there is a complicated system of persuasion or design techniques which, apart from helping users, manipulate their decisions. Such misleading design practices called “dark patterns” operate secretly, leading users to certain actions which bring profit to the platform and negate the idea of true freedom of choice. Rather than innocent elements of user experience, they are complex tools of influencing digital consumers. By combining these misleading design practices with AI recommendation engines, children get vulnerable because they usually lack the skill of recognizing the manipulative elements in digital practices. This shows the inadequacies in the present legislation to protect consumers in India and the need for regulation of digital designs in ensuring the protection of children online. Transparency refers to the provision of adequate information about the workings of the algorithm to the consumer and regulators whereas explain ability seeks to make clear the workings of the algorithm to those who do not possess the required technical knowledge[23]. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides specific transparency safeguards in relation to automated decision-making. Articles 13(2)(f) and 14(2)(g) require information to be provided to data subjects regarding the existence of automated decision-making, including profiling, and, in relevant circumstances, meaningful information about the logic involved and the envisaged consequences of such processing. Article 15(1)(h) further provides a right to obtain meaningful information about the logic involved in certain automated decision-making, while Article 22 provides safeguards concerning decisions based solely on automated processing that produce legal or similarly significant effects.[24]
A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE AND THE WAY FORWARD
With the growing influence of algorithmic systems on children’s digital experiences, the European Union has adopted a differentiated regulatory approach through the Digital Services Act (DSA). Additional obligations are imposed on Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Very Large Online Search Engines (VLOSEs). In particular, Article 34 requires providers of VLOPs and VLOSEs to identify and assess systemic risks arising from the design or functioning of their services, including risks linked to algorithmic systems. Article 35 requires VLOPs and VLOSEs to implement reasonable, proportionate and effective measures to mitigate such systemic risks. These enhanced risk-assessment and risk-mitigation obligations should therefore be distinguished from the obligations applicable to other categories of online intermediary services.[25]
The European Union Digital Services Act [26]establishes rules governing the online services provided by intermediaries for the consumer and products, services, and content. According to the DSA, social media platforms and search engines must adhere to certain obligations like carrying out risk assessments and implementing risk reduction measures. The platforms must under the DSA assess the risks associated with their services and include them in terms of service. They need to assess risks concerning any illegal content, fundamental rights, impact on democracy, gender-based violence, health issues, protection of children, and mental and physical health. Risk mitigation measures that they can adopt to address these risks include altering their terms of service, redesigning the platform, and adjusting recommendation systems. Moreover, the DSA requires that extra protective measures be adopted for the platforms which target younger individuals and require designing of platforms which are safe and secure for children. Moreover, the DSA also requires platforms to ensure that they have made their terms and conditions clear and visible to all, including children. Very large popular social media platforms and search engines must ensure that their risk assessment includes the children’s rights. India can learn a lot about international practices through child-centered design, digital literacy, algorithmic transparency, and child impact assessments.
CONCLUSION
AI and algorithm-driven platforms have transformed how children learn, socialize, and participate in the digital world. Although, when such platforms are designed to maximize engagement rather than protect children, the risk extends beyond what is currently addressed by Indian law. The current legal framework deals with issues such as harmful content, privacy, and data protection, but it fails to take into account manipulative platform designs and ambiguous algorithms. From around the world, we see that regulating platform designs rather than restricting access offers a better approach.
Thus, India needs to adopt a design framework for digital technology that is child-friendly and comprises algorithmic transparency, platform responsibility, and digital literacy. Safeguarding children in the digital world calls for changing the regulatory paradigm from controlling children’s actions to designing digital platforms in the best interest of children.
Author(s) Name: Charul Singh (Gla University, Mathura)
References:
[1] Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (Profile Books 2019)
[2] Dr JN Pandey, Constitutional Law of India (60th edn, Central Law Agency 2023); Sonia Livingstone and Mariya Stoilova, ‘The 4Cs: Classifying Online Risk to Children’ (2021) ResearchGate <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349888588_The_4Cs_Classifying_online_risk_to_children> accessed 08 July 2026
[3] M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (9th edn, LexisNexis 2023); Sonia Livingstone, ‘Children: A Special Case for Privacy?’ (2018) ResearchGate <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326853412_Children_a_special_case_for_privacy> accessed 08 July 2026
[4] Luciano Floridi, The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence (Oxford University Press 2023); Karen Yeung, ‘Algorithmic Regulation: A Critical Interrogation’ (2017) 12 Regulation & Governance 505 <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318820255_Algorithmic_regulation_A_critical_interrogation> accessed 08 July 2026
[5] Zuboff (n 1); Brent Mittelstadt et al., ‘The Ethics of Algorithms: Mapping the Debate’ (2016) 3 Big Data & Society 1 <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053951716679679> accessed 08 July 2026
[6] Lawrence Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books 2006); Tarleton Gillespie, ‘The Relevance of Algorithms’ in Tarleton Gillespie et al.(eds), Media Technologies (MIT Press 2014)
[7] Zuboff (n 1); Yeung (n 4)
[8] Floridi (n 4); Mittelstadt (n 5)
[9] Ibid
[10] Woodrow Hartzog, Privacy’s Blueprint (Harvard University Press 2018); Natasha Dow Schüll, Addiction by Design: Machine Gambling in Las Vegas (Princeton University Press 2014)
[11] Harry Brignull, Deceptive Patterns: Exposing the Tricks Tech Companies Use to Control You (Tested Press 2023); Arunesh Mathur et al., ‘Dark Patterns at Scale: Findings from a Crawl of 11,000 Shopping Websites’ in Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 1 (2019) <https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3359183> accessed 08 July 2026
[12] Ibid
[13] Pandey (n 2); Graham Greenleaf, ‘Global Data Privacy Laws 2023’ (2023) UNSW Law Research Paper No 23-48 <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4426146> accessed 08 July 2026
[14] Jain (n 3); Sandra Wachter et al., ‘Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation’ (2017) 7(2) International Data Privacy Law 76 <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312597416_Why_a_Right_to_Explanation_of_Automated_Decision-Making_Does_Not_Exist_in_the_General_Data_Protection_Regulation> accessed 08 July 2026
[15] Pandey (n 2)
[16] Jain (n 3)
[17] Pandey (n 2)
[18] Avtar Singh, Law of Consumer Protection (5th edn, Eastern Book Company 2015); Mathur (n 11)
[19] Jain (n 3); Greenleaf (n 13)
[20] Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and Anr v Union of India and Ors (2017) 10 SCC 1
[21] Sheela Barse and Ors v Union of India and Ors (1986) 3 SCC 596
[22] Floridi (n 4); Sandra Wachter et al., ‘Transparent, Explainable and Accountable AI for Robotics’ (2017) 2(6) Science Robotics eaan6080 <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318819126_Transparent_explainable_and_accountable_AI_for_robotics> accessed 08 July 2026
[23] Paul Voigt and Axel von dem Bussche, The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): A Practical Guide (Springer 2017); Wachter (n 14)
[24] General Data Protection Regulation 2016, arts 13(2)(f), 14(2)(g), 15(1)(h), 22
[25] Digital Services Act 2022, arts 34–35
[26] Paul Craig and Grainne de Burce, EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials (Oxford University Press 2020)