DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW
2023-2024

PROJECT
CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW

Consumer Protection in E-Commerce Transactions in India

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. Amandeep Singh Sudhanshu Tewari
(ASSISTANT PROFESSOR) Enrollment No- 190101158
(LAW)

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have put a lot of effort into this project. However, this would have not been possible without
the kind support and help of many individuals. I would like to express my sincere thanks to
all of them.

I express my deep gratitude towards my teacher for the subject Dr. Amandeep Singh for
giving me his exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement throughout the
project.

My thanks and appreciations also go to my colleague in developing the project and people
who willingly helped me out with their abilities.

Sudhanshu Tewari

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENT

Introduction................................................................................................................................4

E-Commerce Transactions under Consumer Protection Act, 2019............................................7

I. Ambit of the Act:.............................................................................................................7

II. Jurisdiction:.....................................................................................................................8

III. The Consumer Protection (e-commerce) Rules, 2020....................................................9

IV. Payments under the E-Commerce Transactions:...........................................................10

Concerns under the 2019 Act...................................................................................................12

I. Unfair Contracts:...........................................................................................................12

II. Digital Contents & Digital Services:.............................................................................13

Conclusion................................................................................................................................15

Bibliography.............................................................................................................................17

3|Page
 INTRODUCTION

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was a product of the pre globalisation era. Post
liberalization the Indian Market has grown with an unprecedented pace currently touching the
$3.75 Trillion mark and is aspiring to cross the $ 5 Trillion mark by 2024-2025. 1 The
aspirations of the consumers and the choices available to them have also changed
accordingly. India is one of the fastest growing e-Commerce markets with an expected
market size of $ 150 billion by 2026 (Currently $ 85 billion). The emergence of global supply
chains, rise in international trade and the rapid development of e-Commerce have led to new
delivery systems for goods and services and have provided new opportunities for consumers.
We are presently living in a world where there is an ever-growing dependency on the online
marketplaces. The entire Indian consumer diaspora irrespective of their economic status or
age factor is participating in this online market system either while watching YouTube or
making a purchase from Flipkart, Amazon or Grofers or while signing into the Netflix or
Amazon Prime or while booking cabs through Ola or Uber or gaining knowledge through the
educational apps like Byju’s or Unacademy or while ordering food through Swiggy or
Zomato or making payments through Paytm or Google Pay.

With the high penetration of media and internet, misleading advertisements, tele-marketing,
multi-level marketing, direct selling and e-retailing are posing new challenges to consumer
protection. This has rendered the consumers vulnerable to new forms of unfair trade and
unethical business practices. Unlike a physical market where a consumer gets the choice to
make an informed decision by actually examining the goods and an option to bargain or
negotiate, in this digital world she is solely dependent on the representation made by the
online vendor. There is no option available for a consumer in an online market to examine
whether the product offered is a genuine one or a counterfeit. Unlike a physical marketplace
where the consumer is having the right of free entry and exit, these online market platforms
place the consumers in a maze of terms and conditions once she logs into the vendors portal.
Majority of the consumers of e-Commerce services are oblivious to these terms as they
simply click on the “I Agree” button and some of the online marketplaces doesn’t even bother
to seek the consent of the consumer. Quite often these contracts in the form of “Terms of
Use” run into several pages and the underlying clauses therein will be depriving most of the
1
Mihir Sharma, “Can India become a $5 trillion economy?” (Economic Times, 20th June 2019).

4|Page
rights that may otherwise be available for the consumers 2. These lengthy and complex terms
of use are often hidden as hyperlinks and are placed in such corners of these web pages where
no one will be able to locate them unless particularly looking for it. An ordinary consumer
may not be able to read and understand the legal intricacies and the loopholes that may be
weaved into the clauses of these standard form click wrap contacts. Even if a person is able to
understand and identify the clauses that are against her interest, she may not have any option
to negotiate with the online vendor and modify the same.

There has been no dearth of cases filed against various online market aggregators and service
providers before various consumer forums. Majority of such cases were premised on the
grounds of defect in goods, deficiency of services and unfair trade practice 3 and have
predominantly germinated from lack of clarity as to the return 4/refund policy5, misleading or
wrong information about the product or service offered 6, defective product7, exorbitant
pricing8 or breach of the agreed terms of service. 9 The online market aggregators have always
taken the plea that the deficiencies alleged by the consumers were attributable solely to the
vendors who had utilised the platform offered by the online aggregators to sell their products
and hence they should not be penalised. It has been all along argued that their role was
limited only to facilitate various sellers and buyers through its online portal, and they have no
role to play in offering or providing after sale services to the consumers 10. However, the
Courts have held that even though the online shopping portals may not charge any price from
the consumer for mediating between the seller and the buyer, it is implied that the online store
2
It will be interesting to note that the terms of use of one of the e wallets which almost became the symbol of
the Digital India campaign is actually having a clause limiting the aggregate liability of the Service Provider for
any loss or damage suffered by the consumer by use of its services, upto a maximum of Rs. 5000/- even if such
a loss is resulting from its negligence. See “Paytm Terms and Conditions”
3
See Rediff.com v. Urmil Munjal, RP No. 4656/2012, NCDRC; Anita Makkar v. Ebay India Pvt.Ltd. and
Others, CC/13/130, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala ; E-Biz Com Pvt. Ltd. v. Vishwanatha
Patil, FA No A/10/159, SCDRC Maharashtra; Arjun Chhabra v. Alpha Radio Naptol Online shopping Pvt. Ltd.
And Another, CC No. 868/12, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East) Govt of N.C.T. of Delhi;
Supriyo Ranjan Mahapatra v. Amazon Development Centre India (P) Ltd., CC No. 42/2015, District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ganjam Behrampur.
4
Indiatimes shopping and Others v. Shivanand Narain and Others, Appeal case No.219/2009, SCDRC UT,
Chandigarh.
5
See Anurag v Byju’s The Learning App, CC No 146/2019 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II
Chandigarh; See also Naaptol Online Shopping Pvt.Ltd v. Nagesh Shrikant Date, RP No 09/2012, SCDRC
Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad.
6
Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Ajit Singh Ubhi and Another, Appeal No.25/2010, SCDRC, Chandigarh.
7
Raman Roy v. Rediff.com, CC No.09/13, Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI- Delhi.
8
See Ridhima Ohri v. Yepme.com, FA No. 123 of 2014, SCDRC, Chandigarh.
9
See Joginder Singh Saini v Byju’s Think & Learn Pvt Ltd, CC No 2017/2019 District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Hisar Haryana; Richa Garg v. e.Biz.com Pvt. Limited, F A No 191/2008, SCDRC Chandigarh.
10
See Dr. Jay Prakash Gupta vs Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd, FA No. A/147/2018, SCDRC Kolkata.

5|Page
which provides service to the seller to invite buyers to purchase the goods is a service as
contemplated under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 11. It is also a settled position
of law that if an online market portal is selling products without disclosing the identity of the
vendors, then the portal itself shall be considered as the vendor 12. The law governing the e-
Commerce transactions have been hence largely built around such judicial precedents as the
existing legislative framework is limited on these aspects. Even though these decisions served
as a stopgap arrangement it could not be considered as a substitute for a concrete legislation
as the questions of law can always be answered differently unless regulated by the words of
legislature.

11
Supra, Note 3.
12
Supra, Note 5.

6|Page
 E-COMMERCE TRANSACTIONS UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

It was high time that the law for consumer protection also changed to meet the requirements
of the present economic situations and the market. The Council on Consumer Protection in
ECommerce appointed by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) has in their Recommendations laid down the general principles related to some of
the issues which are unique to the e-Commerce transactions like (i) Transparency in
disclosure of information (ii) Data Security; (iii) Payment Security (iv) Responsible
Endorsement and (v) Redress.

One of the primary objectives of these Recommendations is to ensure that the consumers who
participate in the e-Commerce transactions are offered the same level of protection that is
available in any other form of Commerce. The framework envisaged under these
recommendations is centred on bringing in more transparency in the e-Commerce
transactions which is evident from the elaborate disclosure norms discussed therein. The
eCommerce businesses should provide all reasonable and accurate information about the
products/services offered by or through them so as to enable their consumers to make a well-
informed decision. The guidelines also require the underlying contracts also to be fair and
giving the much-needed flexibility for decision making to the customers to ensure a fair
market. According to the OECD Council the e-Commerce businesses should also be
responsible to monitor the actions of the other persons who are using their platform to market
their products to ensure that they are also not resorting to any unfair practices.13

The Consumer protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “2019 Act”) has endeavoured
to cover the gaps in the existing framework under the 1986 Act in order to facilitate the
requirements of the growing online consumer market in India and has incorporated many of
the general principles put forth by OECD Council in their recommendations.

I. AMBIT OF THE ACT:

Unlike the 1986 Act this new Act has expressly included the consumers of e-Commerce
under its scope. All the online transactions of buying or selling of goods or services including
digital products over digital or electronic network has been brought under the ambit of “e-

13
“Consumer Protection in E-Commerce: OECD Recommendation”, (2016), OECD Publishing, Paris.

7|Page
Commerce”14. As per the provisions of the 2019 Act, a person who purchases any goods or
avail any services through any of the online platforms will be treated as a consumer for the
purpose of the Act and will be able to claim protection and seek remedies under the Act. 15

All such entities which allow a seller to engage to advertise, market or sell their goods or
services to a consumer through their platform have been brought under the definition of
“electronic service provider”16. The online marketplaces and the online auction sites have
been expressly brought under the ambit of this definition. Such electronic service providers
will have the same duties, responsibilities and liabilities as that of a Product Seller under the
2019 Act17. Further the manufacturers who sell their products directly and exclusively
through their own websites or through the online market platforms have also been brought
within the definition of a product seller.

With a view to ensure the protection of the personal information and data shared by the
consumers with the electronic service providers, the disclosure of any such personal
information to any other person except in accordance with the provisions of any law for the
time being in force has been brought under the definition of unfair trade practice under the
new Act.18

II. JURISDICTION:

Place of Jurisdiction has always been a ticklish issue in disputes on e-Commerce transactions.
Even though the Indian Courts were never hesitant in proceeding against the online market
vendors or the web aggregators under the 1986 Act there have also been some instances
where the Courts have dismissed petitions against the e-Commerce vendors citing lack of
jurisdiction and such other reasons owing to the lack of express provisions under the
Consumer Protection Act19. Under the existing Act the consumers were required to file the
complaints either at the place of purchase or where the seller has its registered office address.
The 2019 Act has brought in the well needed flexibility by permitting the consumers to file
complaints with the jurisdictional consumer forum located at the place of residence or work

14
Section 2(16) of the 2019 Act.
15
Explanation (b) to Section 2(7) of the 2019 Act.
16
Section 2(17) of the Act.
17
Section 2(37) of the Act. The definition makes a statement that the term product seller shall not include a
person who is not an electronic service provider. By use of these double negatives the electronic service
providers have been squarely brought under the scope of the definition.
18
Section 2(46)(ix) of the Act.
19
Rajinder Singh Chawla v. makemytrip.com (India) Pvt Ltd, FA No 355/2013, SCDRC, Chandigarh.

8|Page
of the consumer.20 Further there have been many instances where the electronic service
provider has taken the plea that it was not served due notice, despite the fact that a Notice
was issued at the address provided in its website. The new Act settles this issue by stipulating
that a notice shall be considered as valid if the same is served on an electronic service
provider at the address provided by it on the electronic platform from where it provides its
services as such. The Act also requires the electronic service provider to designate a nodal
officer to accept and process such notices.21

III. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION (E-COMMERCE) RULES, 202022

The Rules shed further light into the scope of the applicability of the Act as to the e-
Commerce transactions. The Rules have categorised the E-Commerce under two Models:

(a) Inventory Based Model, and

(b) Marketplace Model.

The Inventory based model includes the e-Commerce activities where inventory of goods and
services is owned by e-Commerce entity and is sold to the consumers directly. The
Marketplace Model includes providing of an information technology platform by an e-
Commerce entity on a digital & electronic network to act as a facilitator between buyer and
seller or rather as an intermediary 23. The Rules shall be applicable uniformly to all the e-
Commerce entities irrespective as to whether they are engaged in the e-Commerce business
under inventory or marketplace model.

The Rules have endeavoured to implement the OECD Recommendations in its true letter and
spirit. As per these Rules every e-Commerce entity 24 who carry out e-Commerce business in
India is required to display the details about the sellers supplying the goods and services in
their websites. The details of the sellers including identity of their business, legal name,
principal geographic address, name of website, e-mail address, contact details, including
clarification of their business identity, the products they sell, and how they can be contacted
by consumers should be published on the website of the e-Commerce entity.

The Rules also have laid down a set of duties and responsibilities for the eCommerce entities.
A perusal of these provisions reveals that these guidelines have been put in place to enable
20
Sections 34 (2) (d) and 47 (4) (d) of the Act.
21
Section 65(2) of the Act.
22
The Consumer Protection (e-commerce) Rules, 2020.
23
See Section 2(1) (w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
24
Rule 2(c) of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.

9|Page
the customers to make an informed decision while making a purchase through the online
marketplaces. The onus has been put on the e-Commerce entities to ensure that the sellers are
not making any misrepresentations or misleading comments or any other unfair or deceptive
practices in relation to the features of the goods and services offered through their platforms.
They are also required to monitor the product reviews to ensure that the sellers themselves
are not posting any reviews posing as the customers. A concerted effort has also been taken to
protect the data and privacy of the consumers of the e-Commerce entities.25

The sellers or service providers who use any of these e-Commerce platforms to sell or
advertise their product or services are also covered under the said Rules. To ensure
transparency of the e-Commerce transactions the Rules itself stipulate that the breakup price
for the goods and services offered under the online platforms should be provided by the
sellers, including the charges for delivery, conveyance, taxes etc. The sellers are required to
disclose to the consumers their Policies related to shipping of goods, exchange, returns and
refund processes to ensure their accountability towards their consumers. They are also
required to frame and disclose in these websites the mechanism for redressal of the
grievances of the consumers. The Rules have made the sellers responsible for any
warranty/guarantee obligations with respect to the goods and services sold.26

IV. PAYMENTS UNDER THE E-COMMERCE TRANSACTIONS:

The e-Commerce Rules stipulates that the payments for sale should be facilitated by the e-
Commerce entity in conformity with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
Detailed guidelines have been issued by RBI for the regulation of the payments under
electronic transactions involving the e-Commerce entities acting as intermediaries. 27 This
guideline intends to regulate the functioning of the Payment Aggregators 28 and Payment
Gateways who facilitate the electronic payment transactions involving the e-Commerce
entities acting as intermediaries. As per these guidelines the Agreements between Payment
Aggregators, merchants, and all the other stake holders should clearly delineate the roles and
responsibilities of the involved parties in handling the complaints, refund / failed transactions,

25
Rule 4 of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.
26
Rule 5 of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.
27
RBI Guidelines on Regulation of Payment Aggregators and Payment Gateways, (RBI/DPSS/2019-20/174
DPSS.CO.PD.No.1810/02.14.008/2019-20 March 17, 2020).
28
The Payment Aggregators includes such entities which facilitate e-Commerce sites and merchants to accept
various payment instruments from the customers for completion of their payment obligations without the need
for merchants to create a separate payment integration system of their own. As per the RBI guidelines these
Payment Aggregators will be now required to seek authorization from RBI for continuing their services. Ibid.

10 | P a g e
return policy, customer grievance redressal (including turnaround time for resolving queries),
dispute resolution mechanism, reconciliation, etc. They are also required to disclose
comprehensive information regarding merchant policies, customer grievances, privacy policy
and other terms and conditions on the website and their mobile application. The Payment
aggregators are also required to have policy for disposal of complaints / dispute resolution
mechanism / timelines for processing refunds, etc., in tune with the RBI instructions on Turn
Around Time (TAT) for resolution of failed transactions.29

These guidelines also stipulate for certain preconditions for the on boarding of merchants by
these payment aggregators. These payment aggregators are required to undertake background
and antecedent check of the merchants, to ensure that such merchants do not have any mala
fide intention of duping customers, do not sell fake / counterfeit / prohibited products, etc.
The merchant’s website should also clearly indicate the terms and conditions of the service
and timeline for processing returns and refunds. These guidelines expressly bar the merchants
from saving the customer card or related data and the Agreement entered between the
aggregator and the merchant shall also have provision for security / privacy of customer data.

29
See RBI Circular on Harmonisation of Turn Around Time (TAT) and customer compensation for failed
transactions using authorised Payment Systems (RBI/2019-20/67 DPSS.CO.PD No.629/02.01.014/2019-20
September 20, 2019).

11 | P a g e
 CONCERNS UNDER THE 2019 ACT

I. UNFAIR CONTRACTS:

The 2019 Act has brought the Unfair Contracts also under its ambit thereby providing the
consumers a relief against the standard form contracts which they were forced to execute
without any option to negotiate. Under the provisions of the new Act a consumer may now
challenge such a contract before the State Commission or the National Commission and seek
appropriate remedies.30 However the present definition is covering only the “contracts
between a manufacturer or trader or service provider and a consumer” and is not covering the
“electronic service providers”.

It is pertinent to note here that the term “service” under the Act excludes rendering of any
service free of charge and that this plea has been taken as a defence on several occasions by
the electronic service providers during litigations. A consumer while accessing, browsing or
otherwise using the websites of these electronic service providers is automatically made
subject to the terms and conditions of use unilaterally stipulated by such electronic service
providers. These terms and conditions frequently contain such clauses which are quite
disadvantageous to the consumers and absolve the electronic service provider from all their
responsibilities.

The electronic service providers tend to bypass their liabilities by describing the transactions
taking place in their platforms as bipartite contracts between the Seller and the Buyer
restricting themselves as mere “platforms for communication.” Some of these contracts
proceeds with the presumption that the consumers are deemed to have been given their
consents, by their mere act of visiting or browsing these websites, permitting these electronic
service providers to use, store or disclose to third parties the personal information provided
by them or collected by the electronic service providers themselves. The definition of
information that may be collected, used or disclosed in this manner may even include the
browsing history of the consumer, SMS details, contact directory etc31.

A plain reading of these clauses itself reveals as to how blatantly these terms are violating the
right to privacy and data protection of the consumers. Unless the definition of the term
“unfair contracts” is suitably modified so as to expressly cover the electronic service
30
Section 2(46), Section 47 and Section 58 of the Act.
31
See Flipkart “Terms of Use” and “Privacy Policy”, also Amazon.in “Conditions of use”.

12 | P a g e
providers also, they may continue exploit this ambiguity to escape their responsibilities. The
relevance for such a provision is also evident from the fact that the OECD Council
Recommendation on e-Commerce also expressly articulating for the same.32

II. DIGITAL CONTENTS & DIGITAL SERVICES:

The transactions related to the digital contents and digital services transferred either under a
tangible medium or by way of online streaming, pose certain unique challenges, which have
not been duly covered under the 2019 Act. India is one of the largest markets of the digital
contents and services and is having a considerably large number of consumers who depend
on the online platforms for entertainment and education.

The sale of digital contents or services may comprise of a single act of supply as in the case
of online purchase of a movie or an e-book or it may be in a continuous manner over a period
of time as in case of a subscription of an e-learning application or a web streaming service.
Based on the nature of the contract the digital content or digital services may be supplied to a
consumer by way of transmission on a tangible medium, downloading by consumers on their
devices or on a Cloud platform, web-streaming, allowing access to storage capabilities of
digital content or access to the use of social media and so on. In such transactions there is a
need to ensure the conformity of the contents supplied, rights of access and storage and
periodicity of access with the terms of the offer at the time of making the purchase.33

In cases like Joginder Singh Saini v Byju’s Think & Learn Pvt Ltd, Richa Garg v.
e.Biz.com Pvt. Limited, Anurag v Byju’s The Learning App34 etc the deficiencies alleged
were related to the lack of conformity between the offered product and the actual digital
contents supplied. The common grievances of the consumers in relation to the digital content
or services are that they receive wrong or faulty digital content or digital services, or they are
not able to access the digital content or digital service in question.35

There should be a defined framework stipulating the rules on the conformity of digital
content or service with the contract/representation and the remedies available to the
consumers in the event of a lack of such conformity or a failure to supply.

32
Supra, note 14.
33
Directive (EU) 2019/770 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects
concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services.
34
Supra, Note 6 & 10.
35
Supra, Note 33.

13 | P a g e
Recently the European Union has amended their Directives on Consumer Rights bringing the
supply of digital contents36 and digital services37 under its ambit.38 Under their Directive (EU)
2019/77039 European Union has also laid down certain guidelines with respect to how the
consumer grievances arising out of the digital contents and digital services may be addressed.
This Directive lays down common rules governing the conformity of digital content or a
digital service with the contract, remedies in the event of a lack of such conformity or a
failure to supply and the modalities for the exercise of those remedies, as well as on the
modification of digital content or a digital service under the contracts between traders and
consumers for the supply of digital content or a digital service. It applies to any contract
where the trader supplies or undertakes to supply digital content or a digital service to the
consumer and the consumer pays or undertakes to pay a price.

The Directive has also laid down specific parameters to assess the conformity of the digital
contents or services with the contract.40 As per the Directive in the case of a lack of
conformity, the consumer shall be entitled to have the digital content or digital service
brought into conformity, to receive a proportionate reduction in the price, or to terminate the
contract.

It is always advisable to create such a self-regulatory mechanism than asking the consumers
to approach the courts and seek remedy. Suitable legal framework should be put in place to
ensure that the contracts governing the transactions including digital content and digital
services are having provisions to ensure the transparency and mechanism for redressal of the
grievances of the consumers. To ensure the conformity of the contents these service providers
may be required to provide a preview of the contents offered or even a trial period of use to
the persons who wish to purchase the digital contents or subscribe to such digital services.

36
See Article 2 (6) of the EU Directive 2019/771 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods,
amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC, and repealing Directive 1999/44/EC.
37
See Article 2 (7) of the EU Directive 2019/771 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods,
amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC, and repealing Directive 1999/44/EC.
38
See Directive (EU) 2019/2161 amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC
and 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and
modernisation of Union consumer protection rules.
39
Supra, note 33.
40
Supra, Note 33, Articles 7 & 8.

14 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

Though the 2019 Act has brought in several commendable changes in the existing framework
so as to protect the interests of the consumers of e-Commerce transactions, it has not brought
in any change to the traditional redressal system except for the introduction of the Alternate
Dispute Resolution channel. There is a need for a self-regulatory mechanism and to put in
place a system to effectively monitor the implementation of the consumer laws in the e-
Commerce transactions. The present system waits for a violation of the law and the consumer
to approach the judicial system for redressal.

In the field of e-Commerce transactions, the legal system needs to be more proactive. This is
more relevant in the light of the fact that these e-Commerce businesses have their own set of
Policies and contractual framework that can be easily monitored and regulated. A person who
is making a purchase through an e-Commerce platform will not be always thinking of her
underlying rights and the consequences at the time of transactions. The e-Commerce
businesses that are well aware of this Consumer psychology may continue with their grossly
unilateral contracts/terms of use governing the transactions through their platforms and will
be bypassing the framework created under the statute.

The EU Commission and the respective national Authorities for enforcement of the laws for
protection of consumer’s interest in the participating countries are empowered to carryout
investigations or proceedings on their own initiative to bring about the cessation or
prohibition of infringements by way of periodical “Sweeps” of the e-Commerce websites.
These Sweeps are intended to identify breaches of EU consumer law in a particular sector.

During the screening of the various e-Commerce sites in February 2019 it was revealed that
more than 31% of the websites offering discounts the special offers were not authentic. It was
found that more than half of the websites showed irregularities, in particular, on how the
prices and discounts were advertised. Wherever such breaches are identified the respective
eCommerce businesses are directed to take corrective actions and if the corrective actions are
not carried out by the identified business these enforcement agencies have been empowered
to remove such contents or restrict access to the online interface and display a warning to the
consumers while they access to such online platforms. They have also been given the power
to issue necessary directions to even remove a particular domain name itself for any
noncompliance of directions for taking corrective actions.

15 | P a g e
Under the 2019 Act the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) is empowered to
suo-moto investigate into the violations of consumer rights or unfair trade practices. They
have also been empowered to review the factors inhibiting enjoyment of, consumer rights and
recommend appropriate remedial measures for their effective implementation. Based on these
empowering provisions appropriate Regulations may be framed to empower the CCPA for
monitoring the compliance of the consumer laws by the e-Commerce businesses. It may also
be explored as to possibilities for conducting of a periodical audit of these websites by CCPA
or such authorities delegated to do so by the CCPA in lines of the present EU framework.

SEBI Complaints Redress System (SCORES) platform is a model that can also be adopted by
CCPA to address the complaints of any violations of the consumer rights by the e-Commerce
businesses by way of misleading advertisement, endorsements or unfair contracts. The need
for such a regulatory mechanism is much relevant in the light of the increasing e-Commerce
market size. The fact that the monetary value of the individual e-Commerce transactions is
comparatively lower, and the consumers may not find it compelling to approach the courts for
a remedy considering the underlying cost for the litigations also calls for such proactiveness.

16 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Statutes, Rules and Regulations:

1. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
3. The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.
4. The Information Technology Act, 2000.
5. RBI Guidelines on Regulation of Payment Aggregators and Payment Gateways,
(RBI/DPSS/2019-20/174 DPSS.CO.PD.No.1810/02.14.008/2019-20 March 17,
2020).

International Statutes and Regulations:

1. Directive (EU) 2019/770 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019.
2. Directive (EU) 2019/771 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019.
3. Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 of the European Parliament.

Articles:

1. Mihir Sharma, “Can India become a $5 trillion economy?” (Economic Times, 20th
June 2019).
2. Manoranjan Ayilyath, “Consumer Protection in E-commerce Transactions in India –
Need for Reforms” (SSRN, 4 May 2020).

Other Online Resources:

1. Consumer Protection in E-Commerce: OECD Recommendation”, (2016), OECD

Publishing, Paris.
2. RBI Circular on Harmonisation of Turn Around Time (TAT) and customer
compensation for failed transactions using authorised Payment Systems (RBI/2019-
20/67 DPSS.CO.PD No.629/02.01.014/2019-20 September 20, 2019).
3. Flipkart “Terms of Use” and “Privacy Policy”; Amazon.in “Conditions of use”.

17 | P a g e