Consumers have reported multiple incidents in which, after booking a flight, they observed a ₹500 price increase while still on the checkout page. Another situation may arise when a consumer has difficulty locating the Unsubscribe button on a website after signing up for the service. Those are examples of bad design; however, they also represent calculated use of Dark Patterns.
According to an Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) report, there is an increase in the use of deceptive practices to manipulate consumer decisions on digital platforms. According to the report, 52 out of 53 analysed apps contained at least one dark pattern. These deceptive methods harm consumers by causing financial loss, compromising their privacy, and hindering their ability to make rational, free choices.
While these tactics are often dismissed as merely ‘bad design’, they represent a systemic erosion of informed consent. The core legal issue is not mere annoyance, but the manipulation of choice architecture to bypass free will—a prerequisite of a valid contract.
What are dark patterns?
The definition of Dark Patterns, as defined in the CCPA’s Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023, is that “dark patterns” are any misleading, deceiving, or confusing design pattern that is used via user interface interactions to mislead or induce users to perform actions they did not mean to perform. Under Indian law, this behaviour is no longer merely a clever marketing strategy; it is classified as an “unfair trade practice” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
We discussed 16 types of dark patterns in a previous article, available here.
The Mechanics of Manipulation: Analysing the ‘Big 5’
The CCPA Guidelines identify 13 specific dark patterns; here are the five most likely to be encountered by Indian consumers.
1. False Urgency
Falsely stating or implying a sense of urgency or scarcity to mislead a user into making an immediate purchase or taking immediate action, which may result in a purchase.
Example: Employing fabricated scarcity tactics such as ‘Only 1 room left!’ to exploit Information Asymmetry. While previously a legal grey area, the guidelines now make such unverifiable claims actionable by shifting the burden of proof to the platform.
2. Basket Sneaking
When an online retailer adds to a consumer’s shopping basket without the consumer’s knowledge or consent.
Example: The website includes a pre-ticked box for an additional product or service they did not require, such as a “1-year screen protection plan” or a “charitable donation,” thereby automatically inflating the final checkout price. It violates the legal principle of informed consent because it entails coercion and bypasses the essential elements of free and informed consent.
3. Subscription Trap
The ‘Roach Motel’ pattern is designed to make it very easy to register for an online service but intentionally difficult to terminate your subscription.
Example: Clicking the “Subscribe” button directs you to a subscription service, but cancellation requires you to call a toll-free number. It creates a barrier to exit for the customer, thereby artificially retaining the customer without their free will.
4. Drip Pricing
Here, a customer sees all relevant fees and charges only after making a purchase.
Example: Consider a scenario in which a platform recommends a movie ticket priced at ₹200. After you select your seat, you will be charged convenience, handling, and taxes. This eventually increases your final price.
5. Confirm Shaming
In this case, a platform employs guilt and ridicule to coerce users into making decisions.
Example: When you decline a newsletter subscription, a pop-up could say, “No, I would prefer to stay uninformed”. Such messages manipulate consumers’ emotions to override rational choice and prevent them from cancelling the service.
6. Beyond Big 5
The CCPA extends beyond the ‘Big 5’ to penalise structural deceptions like Interface Interference, Forced Action, and Bait-and-Switch. The CCPA also prohibits psychological manipulation methods, terms such as Nagging, Trick Wording, and Disguised Ads, and targets predatory practices, including SaaS Billing and Rogue Malware. Taken together, these regulations undermine the “choice architecture” of digital platforms and reframe manipulative tactics as outright unfair trade practices.
Critical Analysis: The Erosion of Consent and Global Consensus
As per Section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, “free consent” is a prerequisite for a valid contract. With dark patterns, even if a user can click to agree, they might not know what they’re agreeing to because of a manipulative design. These have become “consent traps,” in which consent is constructed rather than freely given. Through the descendant moral equipment of “choice architecture” (the framing design of how choices are presented), platforms debilitate their user’s free will. Consequently, while the transaction may appear procedurally legal, the substantive outcome is coerced, rendering the “agreement” fundamentally flawed.
In the global context, academic discussions are shifting from “dark patterns”, a lay term, to “deceptive design,” a legal category. That represents a fundamental shift in gaze, treating these not as mere design nuisances but as matters of fraud and market integrity. As the OECD has documented, such patterns result in “market failure.” Instead of consumers selecting based on product merit, they effectively pay a premium to the most misleading seller. India’s regulatory posture reflects this change in the international legal landscape. By endorsing this international consensus, India concedes that preserving “digital autonomy” requires proactive state intervention to address the structural power imbalance between digital platforms and users.
Redressal Resources: 3-Tier Approach
Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, provides that an individual has a legal right to seek compensation for violations of their consumer rights. The grievance redressal system provides for three levels of redressal:
- Level 1: If you have an immediate consumer complaint about a retail establishment, you can report the violation to the National Consumer Helpline at 1915. You can also contact them via WhatsApp at 8800001915.
- Level 2: If a consumer complaint is of a widespread nature and affects more than one customer, you can write directly to the District Collector or Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) for investigating the violation.
- Level 3: For filing a consumer case, you can do so electronically through the e-Jagriti platform.
Conclusion
The CCPA guidelines mark a significant shift in Indian consumer jurisprudence, emphasising the vigilance of both agencies and consumers. E-commerce has shifted from the Caveat Emptor (Buyer Beware) doctrine to the Caveat Venditor (Seller Beware) doctrine. However, the consumer’s role remains instrumental, as the efficacy of the three-tier system depends on active reporting. Furthermore, the CCPA’s June 2025 advisory mandating platform ‘self-audits’ effectively operationalises the Caveat Venditor approach, shifting the burden of ethical compliance squarely onto the platform. Lastly, as aptly observed by Harry Brignull:
“The scams don’t work if the victim knows what the hustler is trying to do.”
