- within Technology topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy, Technology and Law Firm industries
India has become the largest AI training ground. This article examines how AI platforms use user data, legal risks under Indian law and what businesses must contractually protect.
- Why India Matters in the Global AI Training Race
India has quietly become the single most important jurisdiction in the global artificial intelligence ecosystem. Not because India hosts the largest AI labs or foundational models, but because it supplies what modern AI systems value most: scale, diversity and behavioural data. With over 730 million smartphones, some of the world's lowest mobile data costs and a population that communicates across hundreds of languages, dialects and socio-economic contexts, India is now the largest real-world training environment for generative AI.
The surge in adoption of platforms such as ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity is unprecedented. India today accounts for the highest daily active users globally for multiple AI chatbots. Free and India exclusive plans rolled out by global AI companies have accelerated this adoption dramatically. From a business perspective, these moves are marketed as accessibility and inclusion initiatives. From a legal perspective, they raise a far more consequential question: what happens to the data generated by Indian users, businesses and enterprises while using these AI tools?
- India as the World's Largest AI Training Market
India's importance to AI companies is structural, not incidental. It is the second largest smartphone market globally, with data consumption levels that rival developed economies at a fraction of the cost. Strategic partnerships have magnified this reach. Google Gemini offered its premium AI Pro subscription free for extended periods to users of Reliance Jio, a telecom operator with over 500 million subscribers. OpenAI introduced India-specific free and discounted ChatGPT plans that are paid products in most other jurisdictions. Perplexity followed a similar path through its partnership with Airtel.
The commercial logic is evident. Free access drives habitual use. Habitual use generates massive volumes of conversational, behavioural and contextual data. That data, particularly when it reflects India's linguistic code-switching, informal syntax and regional expressions, fills critical gaps in existing training datasets that are otherwise dominated by Western usage patterns.
Legally, however, this creates a paradox. Indian users and Indian businesses are contributing disproportionately to the improvement of global AI systems, often without a clear understanding of how their data is being reused, monetised, or embedded into foundational models deployed worldwide.
- What It Means to "Train" AI on User Data
For business leaders and legal teams, it is essential to demystify what AI training actually involves. Training is not limited to initial model creation. It includes continuous fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, safety testing, bias mitigation and performance optimisation. Each of these processes may involve analysing user prompts, responses, corrections, feedback, uploaded documents, voice inputs, and metadata.
From a legal standpoint, this distinction matters. A platform may claim that it does not "store conversations" in a traditional sense, yet still use interaction data in aggregated or pseudonymised form for training and improvement. Under Indian data protection law, such processing may still qualify as processing of personal data if re-identification is reasonably possible or if the data relates to an identifiable individual or business.
For enterprise users, the stakes are higher. Training data may include confidential commercial information, proprietary datasets, source code, internal communications or regulated personal data belonging to customers and employees. Once such data is absorbed into training pipelines, the ability to truly withdraw or delete it becomes legally and technically complex.
- The Indian Legal Framework Governing AI Training Data
India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 has fundamentally altered the compliance landscape. While the Act does not specifically regulate artificial intelligence, it regulates the raw material that AI systems depend upon personal data. Any processing of personal data, including use for AI training, must be lawful, transparent, purpose limited and proportionate.
A critical issue under Indian law is purpose specification. If data is collected for providing AI-generated responses, using that same data later for training or improving models may constitute a new purpose. In such cases, fresh consent or a clearly articulated legal basis is required. Blanket clauses stating that data may be used to "improve services" are increasingly vulnerable to regulatory challenge.
Another emerging issue is consent quality. Consent must be informed, specific, and freely given. In environments where AI tools are offered free of cost and have become indispensable to users' work or education, regulators may question whether consent is truly voluntary or functionally coerced.
Cross-border data transfers further complicate compliance. Most AI training infrastructure is located outside India. Indian law now requires clear disclosure of such transfers, and in some cases, additional safeguards. For enterprises handling regulated or sensitive data, this becomes a critical risk vector.
- Privacy Policies: Where Most AI Companies Fall Short
Privacy policies are the first line of legal defence and often the weakest. Many AI platforms continue to rely on broadly worded disclosures that fail to clearly explain how user data contributes to AI training. For Indian regulators and courts, opacity is no longer acceptable.
A legally robust privacy policy must explicitly state whether user interactions are used to train models, whether such training is automated or human-reviewed and whether the resulting models are deployed globally. It must explain retention timelines, anonymisation techniques, and the limits of such techniques. Importantly, it must distinguish between consumer users and enterprise customers, whose expectations and legal obligations differ materially.
From a corporate governance perspective, boards and senior management should treat AI privacy policies as risk disclosures, not marketing documents. Misalignment between public statements and actual data practices can expose companies to regulatory penalties, class-action style consumer litigation, and reputational damage.
- Data Usage Policies and the Illusion of Control
Many AI platforms now supplement privacy policies with separate data usage or AI training policies. These documents often promise users greater control through opt-out mechanisms. However, the legal sufficiency of these mechanisms depends on their design and implementation.
In India, an opt-out must be meaningful. It should be easy to exercise, clearly explained and should not result in punitive degradation of service. If opting out effectively makes the product unusable, the consent framework may be challenged as illusory.
There is also the unresolved question of retrospective application. Most platforms clarify that opt-out applies only prospectively, meaning data already used for training remains embedded in models. From a legal standpoint, this raises difficult questions about erasure rights, compliance feasibility and whether continued reliance on historical data undermines user choice.
- Enterprise Agreements: Where Legal Risk Truly Crystallises
For in-house legal teams, the most critical battleground is not the public privacy policy but the enterprise contract. When businesses deploy AI tools internally or integrate them into products and services, they assume downstream liability for how data is processed.
Contracts must clearly address whether enterprise data will be excluded from AI training. Silence on this point is dangerous. Many global AI providers now offer "no training" enterprise tiers, but these protections are effective only if expressly incorporated into Indian contracts.
In-house counsel must scrutinise representations, confidentiality clauses, data segregation commitments, audit rights and indemnities. Special attention should be paid to whether the provider reserves the right to use "aggregated" or "de-identified" data, as these terms are often loosely defined and technically elastic.
For regulated sectors such as fintech, healthcare, education, and insurance, failure to contractually restrict AI training use may trigger sectoral regulatory breaches in addition to data protection violations.
- Free Trials, Market Power, and Regulatory Scrutiny
The strategic use of free AI plans in India raises competition and consumer protection concerns alongside data protection issues. Free access creates dependence, which in turn weakens bargaining power and informed consent. Over time, this may entrench a small number of global AI platforms as indispensable infrastructure, creating data monopolies that are difficult for domestic players to challenge.
Indian regulators are increasingly attentive to such dynamics. The intersection of competition law, consumer protection and data governance is likely to become a focal point of AI regulation in the coming years. Boards should anticipate greater scrutiny of AI business models that rely heavily on behavioural data extraction masked as free services.
- Linguistic Diversity and the Question of Fair Value
One of the least discussed but most important dimensions of AI training in India is value extraction. Indian users contribute unique linguistic and cultural data that significantly enhances global AI performance. Yet the economic value generated by these improvements largely accrues outside India.
While current law does not mandate compensation or localisation for AI training data, policy discussions around data sovereignty and equitable value sharing are gaining momentum. Businesses should be prepared for future regulatory shifts that may impose additional disclosure, localisation, or contribution obligations.
- Conclusion: Redefining Trust in India's AI Economy
India's role in the global AI ecosystem is transformative. The country is not merely a consumer of AI, it is a foundational contributor to how these systems learn, adapt and scale. Free AI has democratised access, but it has also shifted the cost of innovation onto user data.
For businesses, regulators, and AI providers alike, the future of AI in India will depend on whether this exchange is governed by transparency, consent, and contractual clarity or by silence and assumption. In an era where data is capital, legal design will determine who truly benefits from India's AI revolution.
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.
