AI and Consumer Rights in India Working Paper
Summary
This working paper examines whether India's Consumer Protection Act, 2019, adequately addresses harms caused by defective AI products and services, highlighting gaps in causation and liability allocation across the AI value chain.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 08/14/26, 09:28 AM
# AI and Consumer Rights in India Working Paper Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.12863](https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.12863) [View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.12863) > Abstract:As AI systems proliferate in consumer facing applications, questions about liability for AI related harms remain unresolved\. This working paper examines whether India's Consumer Protection Act, 2019, adequately addresses harm caused by defective AI products and services, and whether it proportionately allocates liability across the AI value chain\. The Act's broad definitions of product liability, harm, and deficiency appear technology agnostic and potentially applicable to AI related incidents including personal injury, psychological harm, biased outputs, and loss of control\. However, significant gaps remain\. Proving causation between AI defects and consumer harm presents a technical challenge, as AI failures often stem from design choices rather than discrete defects\. Additionally, the Act's framework assumes distinct roles for manufacturers, sellers, and service providers, yet the AI value chain involves overlapping responsibilities among data providers, model developers, deployers, and users that do not neatly map to these categories\. Current liability frameworks lack proportionate mechanisms to effectively address complex, multistakeholder AI harms\. While the Act may cover AI entities, enforcement requires clarification on sector specific overlaps\. ## Submission history From: Omir Kumar \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/92bbeaa7/2608.12863)\] **\[v1\]**Thu, 13 Aug 2026 06:21:58 UTC \(796 KB\)
Similar Articles
AI Workers' Inquiry 2026
This inquiry report outlines how generative AI is changing work in the tech sector, highlighting negative impacts on workers and proposing policy changes for enforceable rights and control over AI use.
AI and Liability
Bruce Schneier comments on a German ruling holding Google liable for errors in its AI overviews, arguing that AI agents should be treated as agents of their deployers.
AI Policy
An individual published a professional policy refusing to use AI in their work due to concerns about ethics, privacy, quality, and economic impacts, while acknowledging the pervasiveness of AI in the industry.
AI and hackers - bad?
A discussion questioning whether AI's ability to find software bugs is a problem or an opportunity for companies like Google and Microsoft to proactively fix vulnerabilities.
AI governance is not a policy document
The article highlights critical governance failures in AI applications, such as wrongful arrest via facial recognition and false intelligence reports from chatbots, underscoring the need for human accountability and clear decision-making frameworks.