India: Consumer Protection

India's Food Safety and Standards Authority intensified enforcement in August 2026, targeting major food and beverage companies over "100%" purity claims, energy drink labeling, and packaging compliance. The regulatory actions against Dabur, ITC, Diageo, and over 150 other companies reveal how product names, packaging, and advertising copy are now treated as interconnected consumer protection issues requiring coordinated legal review.

The Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, acting through the Department of Consumer Affairs, has notified the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) (Amendment) Rules, 2026, vide Notification No. CG-DL-E-10092026-276125, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), dated 9 September 2026.

The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (“MPERC”) vide its Order dated 17.08.2026 has issued the Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) for Banking of Power for Green Energy Open Access Consumers (“GEOA Consumers”) in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The SOP has been introduced to establish a standardised and transparent framework for the banking of surplus renewable energy by GEOA consumers in Madhya Pradesh

In this episode of IndiaLaw LLP Podcast Bite, Divyansh examines the growing regulatory focus on dark patterns in e-commerce and the Central Consumer Protection Authority’s push for platforms to conduct self-audits.

India's consumer protection authority has begun actively penalizing companies for using manipulative interface designs, marking a decisive shift from advisory warnings to enforcement action. Recent cases against major platforms reveal how pre-selected checkboxes, guilt-inducing language, and misleading button labels are now being prosecuted as unfair trade practices.

India's food safety regulator has challenged Diageo's Royal Challenge whisky labeling, questioning claims about maturation in American oak casks and the presence of imported Scotch. The FSSAI's enforcement action raises critical questions about how alcoholic beverage manufacturers substantiate age claims, ingredient disclosures, and product characteristics under India's evolving regulatory framework.

The recent spate of inspections and raids conducted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) across Maharashtra has triggered a wider debate on the balance between regulatory enforcement and procedural fairness. Several prominent restaurants, hotels and food establishments found themselves facing suspension orders, stop-business notices and threats of closure allegedly on account of hygiene discrepancies and alleged violations of food safety norms.

On 7 August 2026, the Delhi High Court stayed an order of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (“FSSAI”) prohibiting Dabur India Limited from selling certain food products carrying claims such as “100% Pure”, “100% Natural” and “100% Organic”. Hon’ble Justice Amit Mahajan (Delhi High Court) held that the prohibition ought not to have been passed without an opportunity of hearing. That order captures the season. In recent weeks, the regulator has intensified its enforcement measures to ensure compliance with the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the courts have begun to ask how far it may go.

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (“FSSAI”) has, over the course of late May 2025, taken two connected regulatory steps aimed at curbing misleading claims on packaged food labels. First, FSSAI issued a formal advisory to all Food Business Operators (“FBOs”) directing them to discontinue the use of the term “100%” on food labels, packaging, and promotional material. Second, and consistent with the concerns underlying that advisory, FSSAI issued a detailed notice to a confectionery company in India, flagging specific instances of non-compliant labelling and misleading claims across several of its product lines.

The registration of a criminal case against five daycare workers at a crèche operating within Capgemini Technology Services India Limited’s Brookefield campus in Bengaluru has brought renewed attention to a persistent gap in Indian law: the absence of a uniform, enforceable regulatory framework for workplace and standalone childcare facilities. The allegations — involving toddlers left in the care of employer-provided crèche staff — raise questions spanning criminal law, child protection legislation, employer obligations under labour law, and, increasingly, data protection law given the role that recorded video evidence played in bringing the matter to light.

India is witnessing a growing debate on whether children should have unrestricted access to social media. Concerns relating to mental health, cyberbullying, addictive online behaviour and harmful content have prompted discussions on introducing age-based restrictions for minors.

The Delhi High Court's landmark ruling in Telegram FZ LLC v. Union of India addresses whether Section 69A of the IT Act permits the government to block an entire platform rather than specific content. Following the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak scandal, where fraudulent channels circulated fake exam papers affecting millions of aspirants, the court upheld the Centre's power to impose a platform-wide ban on Telegram, sparking intense debate about the boundaries between examination integrity and digital censorship.