Abstract
This paper examines how the United Kingdom (the ‘UK’), Australia, and India approach the regulation of one of the most pressing issues in contemporary digital markets – Dark Patterns. Taking the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (‘DMCC’) in the UK as a potential benchmark, it evaluates the structural strengths and shortcomings of Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023, in India and the proposed grey list of unfair trading practices in Australia. Through case studies of Amazon Audible’s subscription cancellation flow and Epic Games’ in-app purchase design, the paper illustrates how identical practices receive uneven legal treatment across jurisdictions. These examples highlight not only the compliance uncertainty faced by businesses but also the limitations of consumer protection frameworks that rely on the “average consumer” test without accounting for vulnerable populations. The analysis argues that fragmented enforcement diminishes both consumer trust and regulatory deterrence, while creating opportunities for forum shopping by global technology companies. It proposes guiding principles for reform that emphasise outcomes over intent, require proactive compliance, and embed heightened safeguards for vulnerable groups. Ultimately, it contends that effective regulation of Dark Patterns must be anticipatory, vulnerability-informed, and harmonised across jurisdictions if it is to preserve consumer autonomy in the digital economy.
Recommended Citation
Ananthapadmanaban, Swetha Meenal and Paterson, Jeannie Marie
(2025)
“Can the UK, Australia, and India Master the Defence Against Dark Patterns? A Comparative Study of Jurisdictional Approaches,”
Indian Journal of Law and Technology: Vol. 21:
Iss.
1, Article 2.
DOI: 10.55496/OLZL3027
Available at:
https://repository.nls.ac.in/ijlt/vol21/iss1/2
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
10.55496/OLZL3027
COinS