Dark pattern guidelines impact on intermediaries: a regulatory khichadi

The Central Consumer Protection Authority issued the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023 (‘Dark Pattern Guidelines’) on 30th November 2023 to provide for prevention and regulation of dark patterns. The Dark Pattern Guidelines are introduced to protect the interests of consumers from the unfair practices adopted by various e-platforms and online companies.

What is dark pattern?

The term ‘dark pattern’ was introduced by Harry Brignull in 2010. It refers to certain User Interface/ User Experience Design (‘UI/UX’) crafted by the online companies to manipulate or deceive the users into making specific choices which may not be in their best interest. These tactics are adopted by different platforms to influence the choices of consumers for their own commercial gains. For instance, many times the shopping platforms like Amazon, Flipkart, etc. creates a sense of scarcity of certain products to create an impression in the minds of consumers that certain article is in great demand. Another practice is confirm shaming where platforms create a guilt in the mind of the user for not acting in a certain manner. For instance, Duolingo uses a crying owl figure when one leaves the services. Facebook and Google were found using dark patterns by confirm shaming, where they often pre-select the options or disable the privacy protection options without telling the user about the negative consequences of the same. These activities create a psychological barrier in the minds of user for not going through the checked boxes. Other examples of dark patterns could be nagging, trick questions, pre-selections, friend spam etc. The issue with these patterns are that they play with human psychology to drive profits. Since these dark patterns are cleverly crated to pop-up at intended situations, the experts have been calling them as “worryingly effective”. However most of the time intermediary platforms consider these tactics as business strategies rather than unfair trade practices.

Dark Pattern Guidelines

The Department of Consumer Affairs issued warning against platforms which are engaging into ‘unfair trade practices’ by implementing dark patterns in their user interfaces. The Department found these practices against the consumer rights under Section 2(9) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In furtherance to that, the Department issued the aforementioned Dark Pattern Guidelines to regulate the dark patterns on e-platforms.

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

Consumer Protection

These guidelines are applicable on ‘all the platforms’ offering goods and services in India, advertisers and sellers. The guidelines provide a wide definition of dark pattern under Guidelines 2(1) (e). The essential elements of dark patterns as given under the definition are, a) these are practices or deceptive design patterns; b) on any platform; c) the object of such practices is to mislead or trick the users to do something they are not initially intending to do; d) this is done by manipulating the consumer autonomy and decision making power of the user; and e) this would amount to unfair trade practice or violation of consumer rights. Further, the guidelines also provide for specified dark patterns under Annexure I of the guidelines. The specified dark patterns include false urgency, basket sneaking, confirm shaming, forced action, subscription trap, interface interference, bait and switch, drip pricing, nagging, trick questions, Saas billing and rogue malwares. All these practices are prohibited under Guideline 4, which provides for a blanket provision applicable on all persons including platforms.

Impact on intermediaries

The Guidelines defines the term ‘platform’ under Guidelines 2(1) (g) as the definition under Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020. These rules defines platform in a very broad manner as,

“An online interface in the form of any software including a website or a part thereof and applications including mobile applications.”

According to the report by Asia Internet Coalition (‘AIC’), the issue with this definition is that it includes all the intermediaries which are covered under the safe harbor protection under Section 79 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000. The E-Commerce Rules allows the safe harbor protection under Rule 5. However since the Dark Pattern Guidelines does not clarify the position of intermediaries, they can be held responsible for the actions of third party on their platforms. The experts suggested that this would also against the principle of ease of doing business. One of the main reasons is that since e-commerce platforms and internet intermediaries are governed by a bunch of different legislations under different sectors such as Information and Technology Act, 2000, Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and e-commerce rules. There is a greater chance of regulatory overlap with respect to dark patterns in India for these intermediaries. In order to protect the interest of intermediaries which are legal compliant with the safe harbor provision, the guidelines needs to include an exception for such intermediaries under the definition of ‘platforms’.

Further, different sectoral regulators have different ways of dealing with dark patterns and have already establish their respective legal framework. The Competition law prohibits unfair trade practices adopted by dominant players in a relevant market under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. In Bharat Matrimony v. Google Inc., Google was found to manipulating the search algorithm in its favor and abusing its dominant position. CCI mentioned that such activities are prejudice to the interest of consumers. The dark patterns allow the platform to extract data from the user by way of indirect coercion. For instance, CCI initiated suo moto proceedings against Whatsapp for its privacy policy update, where it forced the users to compulsorily agree to share their data if they want to continue using the app. These instances show that, competition law is capable of dealing with the issues where online platforms engage in any dark pattern activities.

Digital Personal Data Protection Act, prohibits the data fiduciary to hold the data of an individual without their consent. The online platforms have to seek consent from the data principles through unambiguous notice before processing any data. The Fintech industry would have to review their interface and practice proper due diligence to avoid any compliance related issues. Since the DPDP Act does not govern ‘interfaces or designs’, after the Dark Pattern Guidelines, the industry would face a major concern with respect to balancing the user privacy and data personalization. The Fintech companies would have to conduct periodic audits to avoid any data breach. Along with that they should also educate their user about dark pattern issues and then obtain their consent in a legitimate manner with the help of build-in mechanisms/features like customizable settings, accessible privacy policy etc. The DPDP Act and the guideline must be interpreted properly to ensure there is adequate balance between consumer protection and platform autonomy.

Guideline 6 under the Dark Pattern Guidelines specifically mentions that the guidelines shall be interpreted in addition to any other law dealing with dark pattern and not in derogation of other laws. This means that the platform may be penalized under both the sectoral laws and dark pattern guidelines. At the same time it is also not always possible to unequivocally determine the practices that would violate “only” a specific legislation, thus cooperation among different sectoral authorities is required. Therefore, it seems that parallel application of existing sectoral framework and dark pattern guidelines would lead to jurisdiction related issues. Further according to Internet Freedom Foundation, this over-regulation and ambiguity between different laws may adversely affect the creativity and innovation of online intermediaries.

In order to deal with the issue of dark patterns efficiently, the experts have suggested the self-regulatory framework to be adopted by the internet intermediaries. The self-regulatory framework shall include, proper complaint and grievance redressal mechanism for the customers. The Advertising Standards Council of India, a voluntary self-regulatory organization which helps in timely redressal of complaints related to misleading advertisements, can collaborate with concern authority to develop a complaint mechanism for dark patterns. Along with that there shall be properly carved out parameters for penalization of different platforms on the basis of their intent to deceive and potential harm to the consumer.


The online world is expanding at greater pace and today the intermediaries can adopt millions of ways to exploit the consumers. Dark patterns are harmful not only for the consumers but also for the overall competition in the market. However it is noteworthy that while regulating the dark patterns the authority shall not compromise with creativity and innovation undertaken by the intermediaries. The regulators and self-regulatory organizations need to work in harmony to avoid any unnecessary overlap and keep the online experience for the consumers kosher.

Author: Arya Sharma, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

Leave a Reply



  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010