Litigating Platform Design: Two US Verdicts And Their Impact In India

Algorithms designed to attract users can also attract liability.

Two landmark US courts’ verdicts in March 2026 may signal a shift in the law relating to platform liability. It is quite possible that we have moved on from the position of "platforms are mere conduits" to "platforms are products, and their makers can be sued." For technology companies operating in India, the next, critical question is whether the Indian legal framework supports similar claims, and if yes, how will these present themselves.

Two US Verdicts That Sidestep Section 230

Typically, Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act, 1996, shields online intermediaries from liability for third-party content. This provision has (so far) been very effective in shielding digital business majors from liability for the content posted on their platforms. Equivalents of this ‘intermediary safe harbour’ protection can be found in laws all over the world, including in Section 79 of India’s own Information Technology Act, 2000.

On March 25, 2026, in KGM v. Meta and YouTube, a Los Angeles jury found that a platforms' addictive design had caused harm to a young user, and awarded damages of USD 6 million. They jury’s verdict focused on the ‘addictive design’ element of social media and online content platforms. (Meta and Google have indicated that they intend to appeal the jury’s decision.) Tellingly, KGM did not challenge the user-generated content, but attacked the platforms’ in-built architecture. Being framed as a ‘product liability’ claim rather than a content-moderation matter, the plaintiffs successfully circumvented safe harbour.

A day earlier, on March 24, 2026, the New Mexico Attorney General secured a civil penalty of USD 375 million against Meta under the state’s Unfair Practices Act. This was a state-led consumer protection action rather than a private tort action; that said, it rested on similar foundations: addictive design leading to harm, regardless of the content being carried.

Global Regulatory Shift?

The regulatory environment in many other countries of the world is moving in a similar direction. In the United Kingdom, the UK's Online Safety Act requires platforms to map out the 'risk of harm' to children. This mandate forces companies to assess not just the content users post, but whether the platform’s own design such as algorithms that create addictive ‘feedback loops’, or increases the likelihood of psychological or physical harm. On February 6, 2026, the European Commission held TikTok’s features, including infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications, and personalized recommendations, to be in preliminary breach of the Digital Services Act.

India's Regulatory Scenario

In March 2026, Karnataka became the first Indian State to announce a ban on social media access for children under the age of 16. Around the same time, the [Indian] National Human Rights Commission issued notices to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology over alleged violations of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), 2023. (Section 9 prohibits the processing of children’s personal data in a manner likely to cause any "detrimental effect" on a child's well-being, and specifically forbids behavioral monitoring and targeted advertising of children.) The commission noted that the absence of systems to track children's data transfers and inadequate grievance redressal mechanisms as non-compliances.

From Regulatory Breach to Actionable Harm

An Indian action of tort, like the one in the US, is one possibility. It may be argued that (first) platforms owe a ‘duty of care’ to child users, (second) that deploying addictive design features breaches that duty, and (third) such breach causes harm. Indian tort jurisprudence, that said, is not as developed as that of the United States. A product design claim in India would likely depend on a prior finding of breach under the DPDP to support causation and withstand scrutiny.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (CPA) offers a second avenue, with two distinct frameworks. 

The first is the services framework. Under Section 85 of the CPA, a service provider is held liable where the service was faulty, deficient, or where there was negligence or conscious withholding of information that caused harm. This route requires a factual link between the platform's conduct and the specific harm suffered. (There also remains a threshold question of applicability: Section 2(42) of the CPA expressly excludes services rendered "free of charge". Whether user data (or user attention) constitutes consideration sufficient to bring social media within the definition is still being tested under Indian law.)

The second framework relates to product liability. The CPA's product liability framework is set out under Chapter VI (Sections 82 to 87). Section 84(1)(b) imposes strict liability on the manufacturer of a product with a design defect, and Section 84(2) makes clear this liability attaches even where the manufacturer proves it was not negligent. The product liability regime operates on a materially lower threshold than the services framework, which requires proof of deficiency or negligence.

If a platform's recommendation algorithm could be classified as a "product," a claimant in India would not need to prove negligence at all, only that the inherent design was defective and that it caused harm. Whether this classification holds depends on how courts interpret the "product" definition. On a literal reading, Section 2(33) suggests a product must be an article or "goods" in a tangible state (gaseous, liquid, or solid). However, the Act also relies on the broader definition of "goods" under Section 2(21) as "every kind of movable property". The CPA itself explicitly envisages "digital products" within its e-commerce provisions (though it stops short of defining them). This creates an interpretive opening for Indian courts: should the definition of a "product" be read narrowly by its physical state, or broadly to encompass digital platforms and assets.

Conclusion: Pipelines or Producers?

Platform design, then, is in itself becoming a liability and compliance issue, over and above what content is actually hosted on the platform. In India the question is a mixed one - whether a viable liability framework exists, and whether the judiciary will recognize platforms as engineered products capable of causing actionable harm through defective designs.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.