Even when two consumers see different prices for the same product, proving that an algorithm discriminated between them would require ruling out several operational explanations. These could include differences in sellers, dark-store inventory, fulfilment centres, delivery distance, local demand or the time at which the price was checked.
Quick-commerce platforms could face increased scrutiny from the Central Consumer Protection Authority over personalised prices, inflated discount claims and mandatory charges disclosed only during checkout, legal experts said.
While dynamic pricing is not prohibited in India, lawyers said the legal risk rises when prices are altered using a consumer’s purchase history, device type or behavioural profile without adequate disclosure. Showing an MRP higher than the price printed on the delivered product could separately violate legal metrology requirements.
The distinction is becoming important as quick-commerce platforms use increasingly sophisticated pricing systems while adding platform, handling and other charges to orders. The Central Consumer Protection Authority’s Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023 specifically identify “drip pricing”, where part of the price is withheld or revealed later in the purchase journey, as a prohibited dark pattern.
In June 2025, the CCPA asked e-commerce platforms and online service providers to conduct self-audits to identify and remove dark patterns. In November, the government said 26 platforms, including Zepto, Swiggy, Blinkit and BigBasket, had submitted declarations regarding their compliance. The authority has since continued enforcement against deceptive interfaces on digital platforms, although its recent penalties have not specifically concerned quick-commerce pricing.
App MRP must match the physical pack
If the MRP displayed on an app is higher than the MRP printed on the product eventually delivered, the discrepancy could trigger action under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
“The relevant law here is the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, which mandate that the MRP shown on an e-commerce listing should match what is printed on the pack,” said Winnie Shekhar, Partner at CMS IndusLaw.
“If the app shows a higher figure than the physical pack, that is a straightforward breach and it is a strict liability offence, so intent does not need to be proved,” she added.
Liability, however, would depend on who controlled the listing and the price displayed to consumers.
According to Shekhar, the seller, packer or manufacturer would generally carry primary responsibility, but an inventory-led platform could have more direct exposure if it controlled the sale and pricing. A marketplace platform could also be questioned if the incorrect representation appeared on its interface.
Malak Bhatt, Chamber Head at Chambers of Malak Bhatt, said platforms have an independent obligation to display the correct declaration.
“The manufacturer or packer who declared the MRP carries primary responsibility for that declaration, but the platform has an independent obligation under the Packaged Commodities Rules to display the correct, unaltered declaration on its own listing,” Bhatt said.
A mismatch could also constitute an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, he added.
However, a price difference between two users does not automatically establish an MRP violation. The MRP fixes the maximum price at which a packaged product can be sold, but does not necessarily prevent a seller from offering different discounts below that ceiling.
“A shopkeeper, even in the physical world, can choose to sell the same product to two consumers at different bargain prices, and the same is fine even online till the MRP is not being breached,” Shekhar said.
When personalised pricing becomes a consumer protection issue
India does not currently have a dedicated law regulating personalised pricing. Dynamic pricing linked to demand, inventory, delivery distance or fulfilment costs is generally permissible.
The regulatory question arises when the variation is based on an individual consumer rather than on the transaction or supply conditions.
“Dynamic pricing is not, by itself, unlawful in India. Surge pricing, inventory-linked pricing and location-based delivery charges are legitimate so long as they track genuine cost, demand or supply factors and are disclosed,” Bhatt said.
“The line is crossed when the variation is instead a function of an individual’s profile, purchase history, device type or browsing behaviour, without the consumer being told,” he added.
Such practices could be examined under the unfair trade practice provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the CCPA’s Dark Patterns Guidelines if the personalisation is concealed through the platform’s interface.
The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 also prohibit e-commerce entities from discriminating between consumers of the same class or making arbitrary classifications that affect consumer rights.
“Differentiation itself is not illegal. Concealing it may create an exposure,” Shekhar said. “The regulatory concern arises when the differentiation is arbitrary, opaque or unrelated to legitimate commercial factors, particularly where consumers of the same class are being treated differently without a defensible basis.”
Using behavioural, location or device data to determine prices could also raise questions under India’s digital personal data protection framework, particularly around whether the data is being processed consistently with the notice and purpose communicated to the user.
Competition law may provide another route, but only if the platform is first found to be dominant in a properly defined relevant market. For most consumer complaints, lawyers expect the CCPA to be the more immediate regulator.
Inflated discounts could amount to misleading advertising
Platforms and sellers could also face scrutiny if an artificially inflated “original price” is used to make a discount appear larger than it is.
Bhatt said such a claim could fall within the definition of a misleading advertisement under Section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act. It could also amount to an unfair trade practice if it creates a false impression of the saving offered to consumers.
“If the inflated figure is dressed up as the MRP itself, the Legal Metrology issues referred to above would also apply,” he said.
Liability may fall on the seller or brand responsible for the underlying price claim, as well as the platform where it controls the design or presentation of the discount.
Shekhar, however, said proving that an MRP itself was artificially inflated could be difficult, particularly where the discount shown on the app is calculated against the MRP printed on the package.
The distinction would therefore depend on whether the platform is displaying the genuine declared MRP, a previous selling price or an invented reference price described in a way that could mislead the consumer.
Checkout disclosure may not protect platforms
Mandatory platform or handling charges revealed only on the final checkout screen could qualify as drip pricing, lawyers said.
The legal test is not whether platforms are allowed to levy these fees. It is whether consumers are informed of the complete price before they make a purchasing decision.
“Showing platform fees or handling charges only at checkout, without any earlier disclosure on the product or cart page, is very likely to fall foul of this,” Shekhar said.
“The compliant approach is to disclose all mandatory charges before a consumer commits to checkout, and with the same prominence as the base price, not buried in fine print at the last screen,” she added.
Bhatt agreed that disclosure at checkout may not be sufficient if consumers added products to their cart based on a lower headline price.
“Revealing charges only at the last checkout screen, after items have been added on the expectation of a lower price, is unlikely to meet this standard,” he said.
Proving algorithmic discrimination remains difficult
A credible comparison would require the same product, seller, location, fulfilment point and time window, with only the consumer account, device or purchase profile changing.
“That typically requires platform-side evidence, pricing logs, algorithmic inputs and segmentation records, which is usually obtainable only through a regulatory investigation rather than an individual consumer’s own records,” Bhatt said.
For complaints affecting consumers as a class, the CCPA could investigate the practice without first establishing that the platform dominates a market.
“The CCPA has a lower threshold. It does not need proof of market dominance, just an unfair trade practice affecting consumers as a class,” Shekhar said. “Realistically, the CCPA is where most of these complaints will land first.”
The Competition Commission of India could examine discriminatory pricing under Section 4 of the Competition Act, but only after dominance has been established. That makes consumer protection proceedings the more likely first line of regulatory scrutiny as quick-commerce pricing becomes more personalised and less transparent.
Follow Storyboard18 on Google for the latest and breaking how it works news and industry updates, along with in-depth coverage of digital media and media & entertainment news. Stay informed with the latest perspectives only on Storyboard18.
Tags
First Published onAugust 18, 2026, 08:52:50 IST
SPOTLIGHT
Special CoverageStoryboard18 crosses 1 million monthly active users, marking a new milestone in its growth journeyRead More
SEE ALL
SAC 2026: Swiggy, Nestlé, HDFC, Flipkart, Puma, Lahori Zeera shine | Why Piyush Pandey remains India’s creative North Star
Storyboard18 brings you top five news updates from the world of advertising, marketing, and business of brands.
