Digital marketplace needs AI consumer safeguards: India is becoming one of the world’s largest digital consumer markets. It is also entering that phase without a dedicated legal framework for algorithmic consumer protection. The country had more than 1.02 billion internet subscribers at the end of December 2025, and India’s e-commerce market is projected to reach about $345 billion by 2030. Yet Indian law still deals far more clearly with data collection than with the use of algorithms to shape consumer choice in real time.
That is now the central policy gap. India does not need to copy Europe’s privacy regime or China’s platform controls. It needs a framework of its own, built on enforceable consumer protection and shaped by Indian ideas of fairness, reason and commercial duty.
READ I Digital trade agreements will test India’s data sovereignty
AI consumer protection in the digital marketplace
India does not have an AI regulator. But millions of Indians already live inside AI-governed digital markets. Every time a user opens a shopping app, an automated system may already have decided what appears first, what is pushed down, how urgency is signalled, and how prices or offers are personalised.
This is no longer marginal to commerce. It is part of commerce itself. Recommendation systems, countdown clocks, low-stock warnings and personalised offers are not decorative features. They shape attention and influence decisions before the consumer acts.
The concern is sharper because digital adoption is spreading beyond the large metros. Industry assessments have repeatedly linked the next phase of e-commerce growth to Tier 2 and Tier 3 demand. That makes the question of consumer protection more urgent, not less. New online buyers do not enter a neutral marketplace. They enter one structured by ranking systems, nudges and behavioural design.
READ I Grok episode: AI regulation in India risks stifling innovation
Global AI regulation and India’s gap
Other major jurisdictions have moved earlier. The European Union built a layered regime. The General Data Protection Regulation established baseline rights over personal data. The Digital Services Act created due-diligence and transparency obligations for platforms. The AI Act entered into force on August 1, 2024, with phased application thereafter. Together, these laws show a clear legislative choice: digital markets cannot be left entirely to platform design.
The United States has taken a different route. It has relied more on agency enforcement and state-level law than on one omnibus statute. But the direction is still clear. The Federal Trade Commission has treated dark patterns and deceptive design as consumer protection problems that require enforcement, not merely debate.
China acted even more directly. Its algorithm recommendation provisions, effective from March 1, 2022, brought recommendation systems under explicit state oversight and required greater transparency and user protections in the use of algorithmic recommendation services.
India has moved, but only partially. Parliament passed the Digital Personal Data Protection Act in 2023, and the government later notified the DPDP Rules, 2025. That gives India a data governance framework. But it still does not amount to a full consumer protection framework for algorithmic influence in digital commerce. The law is stronger on consent, notice and data handling than on the use of AI systems to steer consumer decisions once data has been obtained.
The gap is visible elsewhere too. In November 2023, the Central Consumer Protection Authority notified the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns. In June 2025, it followed that with an advisory asking e-commerce platforms to self-audit for dark patterns. Separately, an ASCI Academy study found deceptive design practices on 52 of 53 leading Indian apps examined. The problem has been identified. The policy response remains fragmented.
READ I AI regulation: China gets it right with hard rules
Indian ethics can shape AI governance
India does not have to import its first principles. It has its own vocabulary for this problem.
Nyaya is relevant because it is, at root, a discipline of reason, proof and examination. In policy terms, that speaks directly to explainability. A consumer should be able to know why a product was pushed, why a price changed, or why one seller was shown over another. A decision that cannot be examined is difficult to defend in any fair marketplace.
Dharma matters because commerce is not ethically empty. The idea of duty in exchange goes beyond fraud. It reaches conduct. A seller, or a platform acting as gatekeeper, cannot legitimately exploit ignorance, confusion or cognitive weakness as a business model.
Artha, read carefully, does not celebrate wealth without restraint. Kautilya’s concern was always order, supervision and the conditions under which prosperity remains politically sustainable. That logic is relevant to digital markets too. Ungoverned markets do not remain free. They become extractive.
These ideas should not be romanticised. They are useful because they can be translated into modern regulatory design. India’s case for AI consumer protection will be stronger if it is framed not as imported compliance, but as an extension of long-settled principles of fair dealing.
A four-point AI ethics framework for India
The first step is legislative. India needs explicit statutory treatment of algorithmic manipulation in digital commerce. That can come through amendments, new rules or sector-specific law, but it cannot be left only to guidance documents. Practices such as opaque personalised pricing, manipulative interface design and undisclosed behavioural steering must be addressed in enforceable form.
The second step is institutional. India needs a specialised regulatory mechanism, whether a task force or a standing inter-agency body, that can examine how major platforms deploy AI in consumer-facing systems. That requires technical expertise, behavioural insight and legal authority. Without audit capacity, oversight will remain rhetorical.
The third step is disclosure. Large platforms should have to explain, in plain language, the basis on which products are ranked, recommendations are generated, and material price differentiation is applied. This need not expose trade secrets. But it should give consumers enough information to understand the logic of the market they are entering.
The fourth step is public literacy. Consumer protection cannot rely on legal text alone. India’s next wave of digital users will come from places where adoption is rising faster than institutional support. Consumer education on dark patterns, algorithmic nudges and digital choice architecture should become part of a wider literacy effort.
India’s AI policy moment
India has already placed itself at the centre of global AI governance. It co-chaired the Paris AI Action Summit in February 2025 and then hosted the India AI Impact Summit in New Delhi in February 2026. That international posture creates a domestic test. A country that argues for responsible AI abroad must show how it protects consumers at home.
India has already shown that it can build digital systems at scale. UPI, Aadhaar and India Stack changed the terms of public digital infrastructure. The next challenge is narrower, but no less important: governing the digital marketplace so that scale does not become a license for manipulation.
The ideas are available. The institutions exist. What is missing is the decision to treat AI-driven consumer protection as a core economic governance issue, not a peripheral technology question.
Dr Priya Gupta is Associate Professor of Data Science and Artificial Intelligence at the Atal Bihari Vajpayee School of Management and Entrepreneurship, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.