The rapid growth of e-commerce has fundamentally transformed consumer behaviour. In today's digital marketplace, competitive pricing and product quality are no longer the sole determinants of consumer choice. Instead, online reviews have become one of the most influential factors shaping purchasing decisions. By offering insights into the experiences of previous buyers, reviews perform a valuable economic function by reducing information asymmetries that would otherwise characterise digital transactions. However, this trust-based system is increasingly threatened by the rising prevalence of fake and manipulated reviews. Such deceptive practices mislead consumers and distort fair competition in the marketplace.
India’s Regulatory Framework
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, provides the principal legal basis for addressing deceptive review practices by recognising consumers as rights-bearing actors. Section 2 (47) of the Act defines Unfair Trade Practice as adopting any unfair or deceptive method to promote the sale, use or supply of any goods or services through false or misleading representations. This explicitly covers deception regarding quality, standard or grade. Building on this, scholars contend that the deliberate use of fake positive reviews to enhance a product or service’s reputation may also constitute a misleading advertisement under the Act, given that such reviews are intended to influence consumer purchasing decisions.
Recognising that deceptive market practices often affect consumers collectively rather than individually, the Act also established the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA). The CCPA’s mandate to protect, promote and enforce rights of “consumers as a class” empowers it to take suo motu cognizance of widespread issues of unfair trade practice. This also grants it robust powers of investigation, inquiry and injunctive actions.
Under this broad mandate to curb consumer deception, the CCPA in 2023 issued the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, identifying thirteen prohibited dark patterns used by e-commerce platforms, including practices that manipulate consumer choice and amount to consumer rights violations, misleading advertisements, or unfair trade practices. The CCPA has also actively pursued enforcement, issuing notices to several e-commerce platforms for alleged unfair trade practices relating to misleading advertisements.
These measures are supplemented by an additional framework of digital regulation through the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020. Rule 3 of the IT Rules, 2021, and requires intermediaries, such as social media platforms and e-commerce sites, to exercise due diligence in preventing the spread of misleading information. Complementing these obligations, the E-Commerce Rules expressly prohibit sellers from falsely representing themselves as consumers or posting deceptive reviews about their own products.
The E-Commerce Rules also require e-commerce platforms to verify crucial details about their sellers, including their physical addresses and Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration. In addition, the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) published the E-Commerce – Principles and Guidelines for Self-Governance in 2026, which lays down structured, voluntary standards for e-commerce platforms across the pre-transaction, contract formation, and post-transaction stages of an online purchase. The guidelines promote robust seller verification and accountability, consumer data protection, and the disclosure of clear and comprehensive information relating to product specifications, pricing, return and refund policies, and seller details.
Although these guidelines bridge the gap for comprehensive regulation of e-commerce operations, they remain voluntary and do not possess the enforceability of the E-Commerce Rules. This is a particularly significant limitation as many of the safeguards that are the most critical to consumer trust are contained in a framework that is not presently mandated for platforms to follow.
In this regulatory landscape, Indian Courts have begun grappling with the legal implications of misleading or fake online reviews and its impact on freedom of speech and commercial reputation. In VP Sarathi v. S Kiruthiga, the court recognized the internet as a vital platform for public expression, stating that online reviews are protected under Article 19(1)(a) and do not amount to defamation. The Court clarified, however, that false statements or those that are derogatory in nature which would cause harm to the reputation of any individual or entity on social media would amount to defamation.
More recently, as seen in Mubeen Rauf v. Union of India & Ors, the differentiation between honest and fake reviews remains a complex issue. The court in this case brought attention to the phenomenon of “review bombing,” which involves a coordinated effort to post negative feedback on review platforms, relying on political agendas instead of genuine experiences. The proceedings in this case reflected the growing concern about the impact of misleading reviews and the need to distinguish between genuine, good-faith consumer criticism and malicious attempts to damage commercial reputations. An analysis of the judgement also highlights the nuanced approach necessary to maintain the integrity of online reviews that takes into consideration both the importance of free speech and the need for regulation.
Despite these legislative and judicial developments, India’s primary instrument for regulating online consumer reviews is the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) 2022 Standard (Online Consumer Reviews — Principles and Requirements for their Collection, Moderation and Publication). The standard prescribes best practices for organisations collecting and publishing consumer reviews.
The Standard requires organisations to appoint a review administrator responsible for verifying that reviewers are genuine consumers and ensuring that published reviews reflect actual consumer experiences. It also prescribes transparent review policies and moderation mechanisms to identify misleading, fabricated, or defamatory content before publication. By seeking to improve the credibility and transparency of online reviews, the framework aims to strengthen consumer confidence while promoting greater accountability among digital platforms.
Although compliance is currently voluntary, the Department of Consumer Affairs has indicated that this position may not remain unchanged. Through a Press Information Bureau release, it signalled that the standards may be made mandatory if required, at which point, violation by an entity would trigger CCPA intervention under the banner of unfair trade practices if a consumer submits a grievance to the authority.
Challenges and Comparative Perspectives
While the BIS Standards represent India's most comprehensive attempt to improve the credibility of online reviews, their effectiveness has been questioned on several fronts. Their voluntary nature remains the most significant limitation, as compliance ultimately depends on the willingness of platforms rather than a legal obligation.
Additionally, the framework has attracted criticism regarding its practical enforceability. Commentators note that several of its provisions are vague, making enforcement resource-intensive, especially for smaller platforms. More fundamentally, ambiguity persists regarding how the framework interacts with existing legal regimes, such as the IT Rules, 2021, and intermediary liability protections, particularly where reviews are posted on social media rather than dedicated review platforms.
India's approach also stands in marked contrast to developments in several other jurisdictions, where the regulation of fake reviews has shifted from voluntary guidance to legally enforceable obligations. France, for instance, requires businesses that publish consumer reviews to disclose how reviews are collected, verified and moderated, while maintaining records of rejected reviews to ensure greater transparency and accountability. Similarly, the European Union's Omnibus Directive obligates businesses that provide access to consumer reviews to take reasonable and proportionate steps to verify that reviews originate from genuine consumers, and provide information detailing the methods by which this verification is made.
Enforcement strategies are equally distinct. India's framework largely relies on consumer complaints and statutory penalties imposed after deceptive practices are identified. In contrast, Australia's approach is anchored in the Australian Consumer Law, which prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct, including false or misleading testimonials. Enforcement may occur through regulatory action by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which can prosecute contraventions and seek penalties, while businesses adversely affected by fake reviews may also pursue civil remedies against those responsible. The United States Federal Trade Commission has likewise strengthened enforcement by authorising the agency to seek civil penalties against businesses that engage in deceptive advertising practices. These approaches recognise that fake reviews form a part of broader business practices that require continuous regulatory oversight.
The limitations of the current framework are reflected in consumer perceptions. A 2024 study conducted by LocalCircles, a community research platform and part of the committee that drafted the guidelines more than a year after the notification of the BIS Standards revealed that nearly 56% of online shoppers found ratings on eCommerce sites and apps to be positively biased. More strikingly, the study indicated that only 9% of consumers felt that e-commerce platforms provided an interface capable of clearly identifying sponsored or influencer-driven reviews, where content creators promote products in exchange for payment, free products, or other commercial benefits, thus making it difficult for consumers to distinguish independent consumer feedback from commercially incentivised endorsements. These findings suggest that the introduction of voluntary standards has had only a limited impact on strengthening consumer confidence or improving the integrity of online review systems.
The Way Forward
India has undoubtedly taken important steps towards addressing fake online reviews through the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the enforcement powers of the CCPA, the E-Commerce Rules, and the BIS Standards. Yet, the persistence of consumer scepticism and the continued prevalence of misleading reviews indicate that the existing framework remains constrained by its reliance on voluntary compliance. Comparative experience demonstrates that jurisdictions have achieved greater success by coupling transparency obligations with mandatory verification requirements and proactive regulatory oversight.
As online reviews continue to shape consumer choice and influence market competition, India's regulatory approach must evolve accordingly. Making the BIS Standards legally enforceable, clarifying their relationship with existing digital governance frameworks, and undertaking wider stakeholder consultations to address implementation challenges could significantly strengthen India's response to fake reviews and help restore consumer confidence in an increasingly digital marketplace.
Add new comment