Worldwide: Consumer Protection

When a new product appears on the shelf dressed to resemble an established brand, it can cause two different kinds of harm, and Indian law addresses them through two different bodies of rule. The first harm is to the brand owner and to consumers who are misled as to source — the domain of trade mark law and the tort of passing off. The second is to consumers’ broader interests in accurate information and safe food — the domain of food-safety and consumer-protection regulation. A single lookalike can implicate both at once, which is why these disputes often sit at the intersection of the two regimes.

Food safety regulators have sharply increased scrutiny and enforcement of food safety standards. Regulatory action has been heightened with focus on food business operators (FBOs) across segments, including quick commerce operators, hotels, restaurants and packaged commodity players.

India's food safety regulator has introduced new labelling amendments that simplify compliance for infant nutrition products and small packages while strengthening traceability requirements for non-retail containers. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is pushing for front-of-pack warning labels on products high in fat, sugar, and salt, raising critical questions about implementation thresholds, consumer accessibility, and the balance between public health and industry concerns.

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.

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.

Pesky, promotional and unsolicited commercial communications can be intrusive and disruptive for consumers, particularly when received without their consent. They can result in consumers being constantly exposed to unwanted commercial messages, making it harder to distinguish important communications from promotional content. In some cases, such communications may also encourage unwanted purchases or expose consumers to potential fraud and other risks. In view thereof, Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has proposed a draft of the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Pesky, Promotional and Unsolicited Commercial Communications, 2026 (Draft Guidelines).

On 9 September 2026, the Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, notified the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) (Amendment) Rules, 2026 (2026 Amendment), amending the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules 2020 (E-Commerce Rules).

The Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, has amended the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 through the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) (Amendment) Rules, 2026, with the objective of strengthening consumer protection while facilitating a transparent and balanced regulatory framework for the e-commerce sector.