Legislation For Unfair Trade Practices

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T20:32:28.932239+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:10:37.714+00:00

LEGISLATION FOR UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

Tri Lokshana, BBA LLB (Hons.), The Tamil Nadu Dr. B.R. Ambedkar School of Excellence in Law University, Chennai

ABSTRACT

This paper attempts to bring an understanding of the ground level reality of the trade practice in which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practices, especially in places like airports, five star hotels, shopping malls and multiplexes where the balance of the bargaining power is heavily tilted in the favour of these institutions and also study the treatment of the same under the laws which are currently in effect. It also deals with the reason behind the incorporation of the concept of an unfair trade practice to Consumer Laws rather making it a part of Competition Laws. Further, the paper analyses the concept of unfair trade practices in India by comparing the provisions of Competition and Consumer Laws made for the concern.

The Unfair trade practices refer to unethical, deceitful, or fraudulent methods employed by businesses to gain an undue advantage in the market or exploit consumers. These practices distort competition and violate consumer rights, necessitating robust legal frameworks to protect interests and ensure fairness. A variety of legal initiatives have been adopted and guidelines and regulations have been framed, both at the international and domestic level, in order to discourage and protect the abuse of consumers. India has a special statute, the Consumer Protection Act 1986, to protect the interests of the consumer. The concept of unfair trade practices has evolved significantly. Initially tackled under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and through civil remedies, the complexity of modern commerce demanded more specialized laws. The MRTP Act, 1969, introduced restrictive trade practices.

The Competition Act, 2002, replaced it to address anti-competitive practices comprehensively. Meanwhile, consumer protections were enhanced under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, revised in 2019. Keywords: Unfair Trade Practices, Consumers, Competition laws, deceptive practices

INTRODUCTION

The term Unfair Trade Practice (UTPs) refers to a trade practice which is for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice which is prohibited by a statute or has been recognised as actionable under law or by a judgment of the court1. It refers to the fraudulent conduct, which are forbidden by the statutes and laws, such as deception and misrepresentation, and that are subject to the legal action. Misrepresentation can be about any characteristic of a good or service, real or imagined. Consequently, laws prohibiting unfair trade practices often include a general provision and more specific provisions addressing some of the more common types of misrepresentation2.

The effects of unfair trade practices on the economy and business create a situation in which there is no open awareness of the problem, consumers are misled, small businesses are treated unfairly, and the overall welfare of the public collapses. Unfair Trade Practice includes a wide variety of violations, many of which include economic harm caused by misleading or wrongful actions. Claims such as trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, misleading advertising, palming-off, dilution and disparagement are among the legal theories that can be claimed. Unfair trade practice is defined as any dishonest, false, or deceptive exchange practice, or business deception of the goods or services that are regularly sold, that is prohibited by the law or that has been deemed important by a court3.

Addressing unfair trade practices ensures consumer protection, issues ranging from deceptive advertisements to breaches of contractual obligations. In today’s competitive marketplace, consumer trust is a cornerstone of sustainable business. However, there are instances where businesses adopt deceptive, fraudulent, or unethical practices to attract consumers or gain an unfair advantage over competitors. Such acts are termed as Unfair Trade Practices. The concept of unfair trade practices is rooted in the need to maintain fair competition and protect the interests of consumers. These practices can include false advertising, misleading

1 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3619075

2 Buik, Carl, “Dealing with Unfair Trade Practices”, Addis Ababa, source: http://www.circ.in/pdf/CPS-06- Unfair_Trade_Practices.pdf.

3 Beena Deewan, Unfair Trade Practices and its Emerging Challenges, ANMRJR Vol 4 Issue 12,

https://abhinavjournal.com/journal/index.php/ISSN-2277-1166/article/viewFile/871/pdf_195

representations, hoarding, black marketing, and deceptive promotional schemes, among others. When businesses engage in such conduct, it not only affects individual consumers but also distorts the integrity of the entire market ecosystem. Recognizing this, countries around the world — including India — have enacted legal frameworks to regulate and penalize unfair trade practices. These laws aim to uphold consumer rights such as the right to information, right to choice, and right to be protected against unfair exploitation. In India, the most prominent legislation that deals with unfair trade practices is the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which defines and prohibits such acts while ensuring redressal mechanisms for affected consumers.

Alongside this, other laws like the Competition Act, 2002 and various sector-specific regulations also contribute to preventing exploitative trade behaviour.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The rise of unfair trade practices in various sectors has become a growing concern for consumers and policymakers alike. With the evolution of markets, especially in the digital and global context, it is crucial to examine whether existing legislation is sufficient to protect consumer rights and ensure ethical business conduct. This study aims to explore the legal framework governing unfair trade practices in India, assess its effectiveness, and identify areas for improvement by analysing both statutory developments and judicial interpretations. It also seeks to understand the role of regulatory authorities and compare domestic practices with international standards to recommend robust consumer protection mechanisms.

1. To examine the historical development of legislation related to unfair trade

practices in India: This includes a review of key laws such as the MRTP Act, Consumer Protection Acts of 1986 and 2019, and other relevant statutes.

2. To analyze the current legal framework addressing unfair trade practices: The

study focuses on statutory provisions, recent amendments, guidelines, and the role of regulatory bodies such as the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA).

3. To evaluate the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms and dispute redressal

forums: This objective explores how consumer courts and authorities handle UTP complaints, their efficiency, and procedural challenges.

4. To identify the most prevalent forms of unfair trade practices across various

sectors: The study aims to uncover how UTPs manifest in areas like e-commerce, education, finance, healthcare, and advertising.

5. To assess consumer awareness and participation in reporting unfair trade

practices: This includes understanding the level of legal literacy among consumers and the barriers they face in accessing justice.

6. To suggest recommendations for improving legislative provisions and

strengthening consumer protection: Based on the findings, the study aims to propose changes that can make the legal framework more dynamic, accessible, and effective.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The study of Unfair Trade Practices (UTPs) has attracted growing academic and legal interest due to its direct impact on consumer rights, market integrity, and fair competition. The evolution of UTP legislation in India can be traced back to the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (MRTP Act), which was initially enacted to curb monopolistic behaviour and restrict anti-competitive trade practices. However, scholars like Mittal (2006) have critiqued the MRTP Act for focusing more on market control than on consumer protection. This gap led to the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a landmark law that for the first time explicitly recognized UTPs and granted consumers the right to seek redressal. Singh and Prasad (2010) have emphasized that the 1986 Act marked a shift in legislative intent, placing consumers at the centre of market regulation.

Judicial interpretations further helped in refining the concept, notably in cases like Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. MRTP Commission (1989), where the Supreme Court clarified that deceptive advertising, false claims, and other manipulative tactics fall within the scope of unfair trade practices. With the emergence of digital markets, e-commerce, and influencer marketing, scholars such as Mohan and Ahuja (2020) have argued that the earlier legislative framework became outdated, prompting the introduction of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The 2019 Act introduced modern provisions, including e-commerce regulation, penalties for misleading advertisements, and the establishment of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), marking a shift toward more robust enforcement. Academic discourse has attempted to define and categorize UTPs more precisely.

Naresh and Sharma (2013) proposed five broad categories of UTPs: misleading advertisements, false representations, bargain price tactics, deceptive gifts and prize schemes, and non-compliance with product standards. These classifications have since been widely used in both legal studies and regulatory frameworks. Bhattacharya (2017), through a comparative analysis, highlighted those countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada employ more detailed classifications of UTPs, including digital manipulation and greenwashing. She suggested that Indian laws need continuous updates to reflect global trends and technological shifts. Sector-specific literature also adds depth to the understanding of UTPs.

Patel and Iyer (2018) studied the health and beauty industry and found that many products, especially dietary supplements and cosmetics, made unsubstantiated claims that misled consumers about their health benefits. In the education sector, Ghosh (2019) identified widespread unfair practices such as false affiliations, exaggerated placement records, and deceptive course advertisements that mislead students and parents. Similarly, Kumar and Reddy (2021) examined the e-commerce sector, highlighting practices such as dynamic pricing, hidden fees, and complex return policies. Their study concluded that existing laws need stronger digital enforcement tools to curb such malpractices.

In banking and insurance, Varma (2022) discussed the mis-selling of policies, undisclosed fees, and ambiguous loan terms as prominent forms of UTPs, further pointing out the lack of financial literacy among consumers as a barrier to justice. A recurring theme across the literature is the problem of consumer unawareness. Joshi and Menon (2015) conducted a national survey and discovered that a significant portion of consumers were unaware of their rights under the Consumer Protection Act, while many others found the complaint process intimidating and inaccessible. Saxena (2020) further criticized the functionality of consumer dispute redressal forums, especially at the district level, citing inadequate infrastructure, frequent adjournments, and undertrained staff as serious roadblocks to justice.

These institutional weaknesses, scholars argue, allow UTPs to flourish with minimal consequences. On the enforcement front, Raman and Chakraborty (2022) examined how digital technology both aids and hinders the detection of UTPs. They pointed out that while AI-driven platforms enable businesses to personalize offers and enhance user experience, they can also lead to price discrimination and behavioral manipulation. However, they also argued for the potential of AI-based consumer protection

tools—such as automated complaint systems and pattern recognition software—for proactively identifying fraud and misleading content. Sundaram (2023) focused on the challenges posed by social media influencers and digital endorsements, calling attention to the blurred lines between personal opinion and paid promotion. He welcomed the issuance of the Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements (2022) by the CCPA, but emphasized the need for clearer enforcement protocols. From a global perspective, Turner and Wells (2016) analyzed the UK’s Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (2008), which covers misleading actions, omissions, and aggressive commercial practices. Their findings suggested that India could benefit from similarly detailed and anticipatory legislation.

Jackson (2018) explored the United States’ Federal Trade Commission (FTC) model, praising its proactive surveillance mechanisms and strong penalties that deter potential violators even before widespread damage occurs. These comparative studies reveal that India’s UTP framework, though improved, remains reactive and often lacks timely intervention. Furthermore, literature on corporate responsibility emphasizes the role of businesses in voluntarily adopting fair practices. While some firms invest in compliance, fair trade certifications, and transparent communication, Bhalla and Roy (2019) found that many smaller businesses still operate with minimal awareness of legal norms or deliberately exploit loopholes for competitive advantage.

EVOLUTION OF UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES (UTPs) The evolution of UTPs in the legal frameworks came in existence when a need was felt to protect the consumers from practices resorted by the trade and industry, to mislead or dupe them and to protect the consumers against false or misleading advertisements or other similar unfair trade practices. In 1969, the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act was after the Parliament and considered the report of the Monopolies Inquiry Commission that had identified concentration of economic power in the hands of a few large industrial houses. This concentration of power arose in an era of rigid control by the central government of issue of capital by companies, issue of industrial licensing, etc4. The MRTP Commission introduced Part B on ‘Unfair Trade Practices’ and their 4 T.

Rampappa, Competition Law in India: Policy, Issues and Developments 13(Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2nd edn. , 2012).

regulation by an amendment in 1984 through Sections 36A to 36E5. After the incorporation of UTPs in MRTP Act the GOI led to the appointment of a high-power committee under the chairmanship of Justice Rajindar Sachar (Sachar Committee), to review and suggest changes required to be made in MRTP Act in light of the experience gained in administration and operation thereof. The Sachar Committee recommended that a separate chapter should be added to the MRTP Act defining various unfair trade practices so that the consumer, the manufacturer, the supplier, the trader and other persons in the market can conveniently identify the practices, which are prohibited6. This led to introduction of provisions relating to Unfair Trade Practices in the MRTP Act in the year 1984.

The 1984 amendment also created a new authority in form of an independent body known as the Director General of Investigation and Registration (DGIR) which was supposed to work closely with MRTP Commission and on the basis of a complaint, or suo moto, DGIR was entitled to investigate into a claim of a restrictive or an unfair trade practice as listed out in Section 36A of the MRTP Act and bring the matter before the MRTP Commission (MRTPC) established under the MRTP Act to assess the need for MRTPC to initiate an enquiry7. In 1985 the United Nations General Assembly passed what is known as “Consumer Protection Resolution No. 39/248” indicating therein guidelines which governments could adopt for better protection of interest of consumer.

Indian government which was signatory to the resolution enacted the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for simpler and quicker redressal of grievances of consumers8. To meet the growing needs of liberalisation and globalisation and to arrive at a better mechanism for regulating business practices and settling disputes, the Government of India appointed a committee on Competition Policy and Law under the chairmanship of Mr. S. V. S. Raghavan in October 1999 (Raghavan Committee) with an aim to shift the focus of the law from curbing monopolies to promoting competition in line with the international environment. The Raghavan Committee concluded that the MRTP Act is limited in its sweep, and was deficient in many ways either to allow reaping of full benefits from the new economic opportunities or to meet the challenges thrown up by the policies of

5 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1126690/

6 “Report of the High-Powered Expert Committee on Companies and MRTP Acts, 1977” Ministry of Law,

Justice and Company Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, August, 1978, Committees and Commissions in India, 1977, Volume 15, Part B.

7 Unfair Trade Practices and Institutional Challenges in India An Analysis,

http://www.cutsccier.org/pdf/Unfair_Trade_Practices_and_Institutional_Challenges_in_India-An_Analysis.pdf 8 R.N.P. Chaudhary, Consumer Protection Law: Provision and Procedures 20(Deep and Deep Publications, New Delhi, 2005).

liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation. Following Raghavan Committee’s recommendations, the government repealed the MRTP Act and gave way to the Competition Act, 2002. A Competition Commission of India (CCI) was established under the Competition Act with effect from October 14, 2003. Also, as per the recommendation, it was decided that all the cases pending in the MRTPC will be transferred to the CCI for adjudication from the stages they are in.

UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES IN INDIA

India’s growing economy and expanding consumer markets have witnessed a parallel rise in practices aimed at exploiting consumer trust and distorting market competition. Unfair trade practices are deliberate acts of deceit or coercion used by businesses to secure undue advantages, often at the expense of consumers. Such practices are harmful not only to individual consumers but also to the broader economic environment as they undermine fair competition, distort market integrity, and diminish consumer confidence. Recognizing these challenges, Indian lawmakers have designed a robust legal framework aimed at regulating and curbing these practices, with significant focus placed on consumer protection and competition laws.

The term "unfair trade practices" is legally defined under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which describes it as any deceptive or fraudulent activity that causes harm to consumers. Examples include false or misleading advertisements, exaggerated claims about product benefits, and withholding crucial information about a product or service. For instance, a manufacturer promoting a weight-loss supplement with unproven claims of miraculous results engages in misleading advertising. The repercussions of such activities go beyond financial loss; they erode consumer trust and harm the credibility of legitimate businesses8. "Unfair trade practices defeat the very purpose of a free and fair market. " – Indian Competition Commission India’s legislative approach to unfair trade practices has evolved significantly over time.

The journey began with the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (MRTP Act), which primarily targeted monopolistic behaviours and restrictive trade practices. However, this

8 J.N. Barowalia, Commentary on Consumer Protection Act, 1986, 13, (2008)

act was deemed inadequate for addressing modern market complexities and was replaced by the Competition Act, 2002. The Competition Act addresses anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant positions, and mergers or acquisitions that harm competition. A notable case under this law is the Cement Manufacturers Case (2012), where the Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed hefty penalties on several companies for cartelizing and manipulating prices. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and its amended version, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, have been pivotal in empowering consumers against unfair trade practices. The 2019 Act introduced several new provisions, including the establishment of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), which investigates violations and enforces penalties for deceptive marketing and unsafe products.

Additionally, it imposes liabilities on endorsers and advertisers for making unsubstantiated claims. A case in point is the Patanjali Case (2020), where advertisements falsely suggesting immunity against COVID-19 led to CCPA intervention and corrective measures. Other legislations complementing this framework include the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, targeting misleading health claims, and the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, which regulates product labeling and ensures transparency. The Information Technology Act, 2000, also plays a significant role in curbing digital and ecommerce-related unfair practices, addressing issues such as misleading online advertisements and unauthorized sharing of consumer data. Indian courts have played a crucial role in interpreting the scope and application of laws against unfair trade practices. The Nestle India Ltd. v.

Union of India case, involving Maggi noodles, highlighted the importance of food safety and accurate labeling. In this case, Nestle faced significant legal and reputational challenges when it was found to have sold products with harmful levels of lead while falsely advertising their safety and nutritional value. Another landmark judgment is Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, where the Supreme Court underscored the responsibility of real estate developers in delivering on their promises. This case dealt with delay in property delivery, substandard quality, and false promises, emphasizing the need for ethical practices in the real estate sector. Similarly, the DLF Limited Case, involved the imposition of penalties for abusing a dominant market position, serving as a precedent for balancing consumer and corporate interests.

Despite comprehensive laws, enforcing regulations against unfair trade practices in India faces significant hurdles. One major challenge is the lack of consumer awareness. Many consumers are unaware of their rights or the mechanisms available for grievance redressal. This ignorance often discourages them from taking action against unethical businesses. Another challenge is the procedural delay in resolving disputes, which undermines the effectiveness of redressal mechanisms. Cases such as ICICI Bank v. Prakash Kaur, it highlighted the judicial emphasis on timely resolution, but systemic issues persist. Balancing consumer protection with the need to foster ease of doing business is another critical concern. Overregulation can deter genuine businesses, while lax enforcement emboldens unethical players.

For instance, while stringent penalties deter violations, they can also dissuade small businesses from innovating due to fear of legal repercussions. India’s approach to combating unfair trade practices draws inspiration from global frameworks. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission Act has set high standards for regulating deceptive and anti-competitive practices. The FTC v. Qualcomm case serves as a global reference for addressing market dominance abuses. Similarly, the United Kingdom’s Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, 2008, provides stringent rules against misleading and aggressive business practices. The European Union’s directives ensure harmonization across member states, promoting consistent consumer rights protections.

Adopting elements of these frameworks, such as enhanced cross-border cooperation and quicker redressal processes, could strengthen India’s legal system further. Before 2002, India's primary legislation to address unfair trade practices was the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (MRTP), which was created to prohibit monopolies and restrictive trade practices. The Competition Act, 2002 replaced the MRTP Act, which was repealed. As a result, all pending cases in the MRTPC were transferred to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for decision-making based on their current status. However, the Competition Act lacked a provision to address unfair commercial practices; as a result, this was implemented under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 (COPRA), which addressed unfair trade practices in any case9.

9 Sharad Vadehra, Growing Incidences of Unfair Trade Practice in India, Mondaq,

http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/343952/Consumer+Trading+Unfair+Trading/Growing+Incidences+Of+Unfair +Tr ade+Practices+In+India

Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 defines unfair trade practices as: - "A trade practice that adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice, including any of the following methods, in order to protect the interest of consumers. The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act was designed to safeguard consumers; however, it failed insufficient in this regard. As a result, the” Sachar Committee's recommendations” led to an amendment in 1984 that included a section on unfair commercial practices promote the sale, usage, or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service. These recommendations have significance in relation to unfair trade practices involving pricing, even though they were made in the light of a retailer's or manufacturer's obligations and responsibilities regarding their advertisements and fulfilment of consumer expectations and promises.

JUDICIAL POSITION OF UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES IN INDIA

The current legal position regarding the malpractices of overpricing and hiking the maximum retail price, by touching upon the relevant and vital sections of the various related legislations. It is observed that malls often alter the MRP on the products by using price printing machines, in order to lure customers with the pretence of a discount on the MRP10. The goods are also sold at this inflated price, the vendors claim to have no choice but to do this as rentals at the malls are very high. In a case involving hotels, the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC)11 ordered Nyay Mandir, in Gujarat, to pay 1. 5 lakh to the consumer welfare fund and upheld the Gujarat State Commission’s decision ordering Nyay Mandir to pay Rs. 6,000/- as compensation to complainant Ishwar Lal Jinabhai Desai, who had approached the forum for having been charged Rs.

18 for ‘Miranda’, a popular carbonated drink, despite its MRP being marked at only Rs. 12. 50/-13. In another case, the NCDRC also ruled in favour of Delhi’s DK Chopra when he filed a complaint regarding Snack Bar at Chennai’s Kamaraj Domestic Terminal. They charged him Rs. 300/- for 2 cans of Red Bull, an energy drink, when the price printed on the can was Rs. 75/-. Previously, the Chennai District Forum, and the Tamil Nadu State Commission had both dismissed the compliant. The NCDRC

10 M.S. Sreedhar, Modus operandi: How you get cheated, THE HINDU, available at

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/modus-operandi-how-you-getcheated/article4557695.ece?ref=relatedNews 11 The apex consumer body which deals with the Consumer to Business (C2B) dispute redressal in India. 13 Hotel fined Rs 1.5 lakh for charging Rs 5 above MRP costs, THE ECONOMIC TIMES, available at http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-12-27/news/28392816_1_mrp-consumer-forum- hotel

14 J. Gai, How not to get exploited by dual pricing, overcharging, BUSINESS STANDARD (December

31, 2024), available at http://www.business-standard.com/article/pf/how-not-to-get-exploited-by-dualpricingovercharging- 114060100725_1.html

also ordered Snack Bar to pay 50 lakhs towards the consumer welfare fund for unjust enrichment. The Commission also distinguished between restaurants and hotels which provide a service, and stalls or shops which do not do so, stating that the former could levy a charge above the MRP. They observed that the Airports Authority of India seemed to be colluding with retailers and turning a blind eye to such practices so that they could charge a higher license fee which would be otherwise unaffordable14. During a raid at Pune mango trader’s store, Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) agents found 500kg of mangoes valued at Rs. 25,000/- that were being artificially ripened using calcium carbide. Preventing food adulteration by employing carbide for artificial ripening is prohibited by law. When ingested in large amounts, the substance harms the internal organs.

The mangoes had been destroyed by FDA authorities at a dumping ground, and the chemical samples were submitted to a public health laboratory in the city for additional analysis. Prahlad was travelling along the Mumbai-Goa highway in January 2009 and stopped at the Kamat Hotel to buy a bottle of water. He charged Rs. 25/- for it, but later realized that the same bottle was being sold at other stores on the highway for Rs. 15/- without any difference in quality or quantity12. Prahlad transferred the Pune-based Dhariwal Industries Limited (the producers of the bottled water in question) and Vithal Kumar of Kamat Hotels to the Raigad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum against Rasiklal Dhariwal. By arguing that the extra fee was for the environment offered by the hotel, they contested the argument.

The Forum denied its appeal, arguing that it was devoid of substance and that there were no-distinguishable qualities that could justify the higher MRP. It is to be noted that this decision is only applicable to retail outlets on the counter and not for sit-in customers. In the pharmaceutical industry, there is ongoing competition between the vendors of generic and prescription drugs. Such competitions have a tendency to get unpleasant at times, resulting in several instances of unfair trade practices. It is well known that the pharmaceutical business has a significant impact on the doctors’ prescribing practices when it comes to prescription drugs, where the doctor serves as the decision maker for the patient. Precompetitive effects may arise when a medical representative informs doctors about the new treatments, including

12 A.J. Lakade, Hotel can’t sell bottled water at higher price: Consumer Forum, THE INDIAN EXPRESS,

available at http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/hotel-cant-sell-bottled-water-at-higher-priceconsumerforum/ .

their efficacy and utility. Businesses use of marketing techniques, such as providing doctors with gifts like smart-phones, vehicles, or even sponsored assisted living facilities, may minimize the deemed side and drive-up costs for consumers13. The number of people using insurance is rising continuously, as it is a significant component of the financial service that the financial industry provides to the individuals. With these unfair commercial practices becoming more prevalent. Insurance is a guarantee that the insured will receive a specific payment or reimbursement for a loss or harm in the event of an unforeseen circumstance at a later time. A lack of service would result in a delay or inability to keep that promise. As a result, it is clear that the insurance companies heavily depend on the public’s belief that the promises made would be kept14.

The businesses frequently use attractive offers to attract customers, then attempt to break their promises. They have numerous comprehensive exemption and restriction provisions that are advantageous to big business. The advantageous terms are often hidden in tiny type, which the person never reads because it would take a lot of effort and money to find out what these terms are15.

COMPONENTS OF UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

There are various components of Unfair Trade Practices (UTPs) according to the Consumer and Competition Laws a) Consumer Laws An unfair trade practice means a trade practice, which for the purpose of promoting any sale, use or supply of any goods or services, adopts unfair method or deceptive practice. Unfair trade practice can be categorized as: • False representation • False offer of bargain price

13 CENTAD, “Competition Law and Indian Pharmaceutical Industry”,

http://www.cci.gov.in/images/media/completed/PharmInd230611.pdf

14 https://www.ijlra.com/productImage/VIPIN%20KUMAR.pdf

15 al, Lokesh, “Unfair Terms in Contract and Legal Remed Available in India”, Corporate Law Dossier,

http://coporatelaws.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/unfair-terms-in-contract-and-legalremedy-available-in-india

Free gifts offers and prize schemes • Non-compliance of prescribed standards • Hoarding, destruction etc. b) Competition Laws Under the Competition Act, unfair or discriminatory trade practices fall under the category of: • Anti-competitive agreements • Abuse of Dominant Position and • Regulation Combinations Therefore, unfair trade practice will fall within the purview of Competition Act only when the enterprise is in dominant position or have indulged in making anti-competitive agreements and combinations.

UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE IN DIFFERENT SECTORS

Unfair Trade Practices (UTPs) refer to dishonest, deceptive, or unethical methods adopted by businesses to gain unfair advantages over competitors or to manipulate consumers. Such practices violate the principles of fair competition and consumer rights. Although laws exist to regulate trade conduct, UTPs persist across various industries, each presenting its own set of challenges.

1. Advertising and Marketing

One of the most visible forms of unfair trade practice appears in advertising and marketing. Misleading advertisements are a common tactic, where companies exaggerate product features, suppress essential facts, or use manipulated testimonials to entice consumers. For instance, a skincare brand might falsely claim “100% results in 7 days” or depict transformations that are digitally altered. Many advertisements also use disclaimers in tiny fonts or fast-paced audio to escape scrutiny, knowing the consumer may not notice. Another concern in this field is the use of surrogate advertising, where companies promote

banned or harmful products under the guise of selling something else (e.g., promoting alcohol through music CDs or soda). These tactics violate consumer rights under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which mandates honesty and transparency in marketing.

2. E-Commerce and Online Retail

The rapid growth of online shopping platforms has brought convenience but also opened new avenues for unfair trade practices. Common issues include fake discounts, where inflated original prices are slashed to create the illusion of a deal. Sellers may also engage in listing counterfeit or low-quality products, while using photos of branded items to mislead buyers. Another deceptive tactic involves hidden charges, such as excessive delivery fees, handling costs, or unclear return policies. Some platforms offer free trials but later auto-renew subscriptions without adequate consumer consent. While the Consumer Protection (ECommerce) Rules, 2020, aim to regulate these concerns, enforcement remains an ongoing challenge.

3. Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Sector

The pharmaceutical industry is highly sensitive due to its direct impact on human health, yet it is not immune to UTPs. Practices such as misbranding drugs, overstating efficacy, and marketing unapproved or untested products are serious concerns. There have been instances where manufacturers promote medicines as “herbal” or “safe” without scientific backing, misleading vulnerable consumers. Hospitals and private clinics may also engage in UTPs by inflating bills, conducting unnecessary tests, or misrepresenting the qualifications of their staff. Similarly, in the insurance sector, policy terms may be ambiguously worded, leading consumers to purchase policies that don’t cover what they assumed they would.

4. Education and Coaching Services

The education sector, especially private institutions and coaching centers, is increasingly reported for unfair practices. These include misrepresenting affiliations, approvals, or accreditations, falsely promising “100% placements,” and using celebrity endorsements to gain credibility. Some institutions charge exorbitant fees under the pretext of providing international

exposure or guaranteed career outcomes. Digital learning platforms may also promise skill certifications or job assistance that are either non-existent or exaggerated. Vulnerable students and parents, eager to invest in education, often fall prey to such manipulations. Despite legal avenues, the regulatory framework in this sector remains scattered.

5. Real Estate and Construction

The real estate industry is notorious for unfair trade practices. Common issues include false promises about project completion dates, misrepresentation of location benefits or amenities, and selling without proper approvals or clearances. Builders may show buyers attractive sample flats that don’t match the final product or offer properties at “pre-launch” without the legal authority to sell. Many homebuyers have been trapped in projects that are either delayed for years or abandoned altogether. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA), 2016, was introduced to bring transparency and accountability, but cases of UTP still emerge due to poor implementation and legal loopholes.

6. Banking and Financial Services

Financial institutions sometimes engage in deceptive practices like mis-selling of insurance policies, complex loan terms, and hidden charges. Agents may promise certain returns or features not mentioned in the policy documents, and customers often find it difficult to withdraw or cancel services. Another area of concern is aggressive or coercive recovery practices, where loan recovery agents harass borrowers. The lack of clear, comprehensible information and customer support makes the financial sector particularly prone to exploitation. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) have issued guidelines, but ground-level enforcement remains inconsistent.

7. Telecommunication Services

Telecom service providers have also been criticized for UTPs such as automatic deductions for value-added services (VAS), misleading tariff advertisements, and poor disclosure of data usage limits. Many customers are unaware of subscriptions activated on their number, leading to monthly deductions. While the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has issued directives on consumer protection, the grievances continue, particularly in rural and semi-urban areas where awareness levels are low.

8. Food and Beverage Industry

In the F&B sector, brands may label products with terms like “natural,” “organic,” or “sugarfree” without adhering to proper definitions or standards. Restaurants may charge service fees disguised as taxes or manipulate portion sizes while charging premium prices. There are also cases of tampering with expiry dates, adding harmful additives, or misrepresenting nutritional facts. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is responsible for regulating these issues, yet consumer complaints are still frequent.

9. Travel and Tourism

Tour operators and travel portals may engage in UTP by advertising luxury facilities that do not exist, hiding cancellation policies, or falsely claiming affiliations with global brands. Customers may book based on these advertisements, only to face last-minute changes, downgrades, or loss of money. Airlines may impose hidden baggage charges or create misleading promotions, while hotels may show edited photographs of rooms. The absence of a centralized grievance system in this sector makes redressal difficult.

10. Employment and Recruitment Services

Fake job offers, paid interviews, and misleading job descriptions are examples of UTP in the employment sector. Some agencies promise high-paying jobs abroad for a fee and then disappear. Online platforms may show exaggerated salary ranges or promote fake company credentials to lure job-seekers. The unregulated nature of job placement services and freelancing platforms allows such practices to flourish, with limited avenues for consumer action. Unfair trade practices are not limited to a single domain—they pervade nearly every field that involves consumer interaction. Whether it’s healthcare, education, real estate, or digital services, the risk of exploitation persists where transparency and enforcement are lacking.

Although India has made significant progress through legislation like the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, RERA, and various sectoral guidelines, much remains to be done in terms of awareness, enforcement, and accountability. A strong regulatory ecosystem, combined with informed consumers and proactive grievance redressal mechanisms, is essential to eliminating these malpractices and building trust in the marketplace.

METHODS OR CATEGORIES OF UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

Unfair Trade Practice means a trade practice or a business practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice. These practices may be categorized as under:

1. FALSE REPRESENTATION:

The practice of making any oral or written statement or representation which: • Falsely suggests that the goods are of a particular standard quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model • Falsely suggests that the services are of a particular standard, quantity or grade • Falsely suggests any re-built, second-hand renovated, reconditioned or old goods as new goods • Represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which they do not have • Represents that the seller or the supplier has a sponsorship or approval or affiliation which it does not have • Make a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods or services • Gives any warranty or guarantee of the performance, efficacy or length of life of the goods, that is not based on an adequate or proper test • Makes to the public a representation in the form that purports to be a warranty or guarantee of the goods or services • A promise to replace, maintain or repair the goods until it has achieved a specified

result, if such promise is materially misleading or there is no reasonable prospect that

such warranty, guarantee or promise will be fulfilled • Materially misleads about the prices at which such goods or services are available in the market • Gives false or misleading facts disparaging the goods, services or trade of another person.

2. FALSE OFFER OF ‘BARGAIN PRICE’

Where an advertisement is published in a newspaper or otherwise, whereby goods or services are offered at a bargain price when in fact there is no intention that the same may be offered at that price, for a reasonable period or reasonable quantity, it shall amount to an Unfair Trade Practice. The ‘Bargain Price16’, for this purpose means the price stated in the advertisement in such manner as suggests that it is lesser than the ordinary price, or the price which any person coming across the advertisement would believe to be better than the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold.

3. FREE ‘GIFT OFFER’ AND ‘PRIZE SCHEME’

The unfair trade practices under this category are: Offering any gifts, prizes or other items along with the goods when the real intention is different, or Creating impression that something is being offered free along with the goods, when in fact the price is wholly or partly covered by the price of the article sold, or offering some prizes to the buyers by the conduct of any contest, lottery or game of chance or skill, with real intention to promote sales or business.

4. NON-COMPLIANCE OF PRESCRIBED STANDARDS

Any sale or supply of goods, for use by consumers, knowing or having reason to believe that the goods do not comply with the standards prescribed by some competent authority, in relation to their performance, composition, contents, design, construction, finishing or packing, as are necessary to prevent or reduce the risk of injury to the person using such goods, shall amount

16 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bargain

to an ‘Unfair Trade Practice’.

5. HOARDING, DESTRUCTION

Any practice that permits the hoarding or destruction of goods, or refusal to sell the goods or provide any services, with an intention to raise the cost of those or other similar goods or services, shall be an ‘Unfair Trade Practice’.

MONOPOLY AND COMPETITION

When a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity a monopoly exists. ‘Monopolies’ are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce goods or services and a lack of similar goods. The verb “monopolize” refers to the process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power, to charge high prices. Although ‘Monopolies’ may be big businesses, size is not a characteristic of a monopoly. A small business may still have the power to raise prices in a small industry. Holding a dominant position or a monopoly of a market is not illegal in itself. However certain categories of behaviour can, when a business is dominant, be considered abusive and therefore incur legal sanctions.

A government granted monopoly or legal monopoly, by contrast, is sanctioned by the State, often to provide an incentive to invest in a risky venture or enrich a domestic interest group. Patents, copyright and trademarks, are sometimes used as examples of government granted monopolies, but they rarely provide market power. The government may also reserve the venture for itself, thus forming a government monopoly.

REDRESSAL AGAINST UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

1. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986

The Consumer Protection Act, 198617 is an Act to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers’ disputes and for matters

17 https://www.jkshahclasses.com/announcement/ConsumerProtectionAct2019.pdf

connected therewith. While consumers are protected under this Act the small businessmen are protected under the Competition Act.

2. The Competition Act, 2002

The Competition Act 2002 has been enacted to promote competition in India. The ultimate aim of competition law is to protect consumer welfare as competition in a market ensures that market players are looking to find the most efficient means of production (resulting in good quality services and goods at lower prices). However, unlike the previous Indian competition law, the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (commonly called the MRPT Act), the Competition Act 2002 does not apply to all “unfair trade practices”. So, while many consumer disputes would have come under the MRTP Act, the new Competition Act will not always apply to such cases. The Competition Act basically does two major things. It prohibits: 1. Anti-Competitive Agreements - Anti-competitive practices are practices that prevent or reduce competition in the market.

Agreements in respect of Production, supply, distribution, storage, acquisition or control of goods or provision of services that cause or are likely to cause appreciable adverse effects on competition within India are anti-competitive agreements. 2. The Abuse of Dominant Position - Abuse of a dominant position occurs when a dominant firm in a market, or a dominant group of firms, engages in conduct that is intended to eliminate or discipline a competitor or to deter future entry by new competitors, with the result that competition is prevented or lessened substantially.

ROLE OF COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Competition Commission of India is a body of the Government of India responsible for enforcing The Competition Act, 2002 throughout India and to prevent activities that have an adverse effect on competition in India. It was established on 14 October 2003. It became fully functional in May, 2009. The Competition Commission of India performs the following functions: • Make the markets work for the benefit and welfare of consumers.

Ensure fair and healthy competition in economic activities in the country for faster and inclusive growth and development of economy. • Implement competition policies with an aim to effectuate the most efficient utilization of economic resources. • Develop and nurture effective relations and interactions with sectoral regulators to ensure smooth alignment of sectoral regulatory laws in tandem with the competition law. • Effectively carry out competition advocacy and spread the information on benefits of competition among all stakeholders to establish and nurture competition culture in Indian economy18.

THE

WAY

FORWARD:

STRENGTHENING

CONSUMER

PROTECTION

MECHANISMS

Despite significant advancements in legal and institutional frameworks, Unfair Trade Practices (UTPs) continue to impact consumers across industries in India. While laws such as the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and sector-specific regulations have laid a strong foundation, gaps in implementation, awareness, and enforcement still hinder their effectiveness. Strengthening consumer protection requires a multifaceted approach involving legislative reform, institutional capacity-building, and greater consumer participation.

1. Enhancing Enforcement and Monitoring

One of the major weaknesses in the current framework is the lack of proactive enforcement. Regulatory bodies like the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), while empowered with investigatory powers, often face resource constraints. Strengthening such bodies with increased staffing, training, funding, and technological tools can significantly improve their efficiency. Additionally, a system of real-time monitoring, especially in sectors like ecommerce, advertising, and financial services, should be adopted. AI and data analytics can play a role in detecting misleading ads, fraudulent schemes, or repeated consumer grievances. 18 https://nios.ac.in/media/documents/SrSec338New/338_Introduction_To_Law_Eng/338_Introduction_To_Law _Eng_L29.pdf

2. Consumer Awareness and Education

An informed consumer is the first line of defense against unfair trade practices. However, in India, consumer literacy remains low, especially in rural and economically weaker sections. Awareness campaigns must move beyond urban-centric online ads and be integrated into: - School and college curricula, - Regional media channels in local languages, - Community engagement through NGOs and local governance bodies. Workshops, digital tools, mobile apps, and easy-to-understand guides on consumer rights can empower individuals to recognize and report unfair practices confidently.

3. Simplifying Complaint Redressal Mechanisms

While the new Act provides for online complaint filing through the E-Daakhil portal, delays and technical glitches often discourage consumers. There is a need to: - Streamline and digitize the grievance process end-to-end, - Set strict timelines for resolution, - Introduce consumer helplines and support centers in every district, - Enable automatic tracking and updates of complaints for transparency. The government can also partner with legal aid organizations to help consumers who lack legal literacy or internet access.

4. Stronger Penalties and Deterrence

For laws to be truly effective, they must deter violations. Currently, many businesses see small fines as the “cost of doing business.” Increasing the penalty thresholds, enabling class-action lawsuits, and allowing for interim compensation or freezing of deceptive product sales can act

as stronger deterrents. Additionally, naming and shaming repeat offenders via public databases or media announcements could create reputational consequences that curb future violations.

5. Collaborative Regulation and Stakeholder Involvement

Consumer protection should not be the sole responsibility of regulatory bodies. Involving multiple stakeholders—industry players, consumer groups, media, civil society, and academia—in policy-making and implementation can create a culture of shared responsibility. Encouraging self-regulation within industries, through codes of conduct and internal grievance cells, can reduce the burden on external authorities. Periodic consultative sessions and public reviews of consumer laws will also help them evolve with market trends and digital innovation.

6. Updating Laws to Address Emerging Sectors

With the rise of digital marketplaces, fintech, crypto, AI-driven services, and influencer marketing, existing laws need to be dynamic and forward-looking. Regulatory clarity is especially crucial in areas like: - Data privacy and consent in online services, - Deceptive influencer marketing, where paid endorsements are not disclosed, - Virtual product/service misrepresentation, including NFTs and digital goods, - Cross-border e-commerce, where jurisdiction and refund issues are common. Legislative bodies must work closely with technology experts to create tech-specific consumer protection frameworks.

7. Strengthening the Role of Local and District-Level Bodies

Grassroots institutions such as District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (DCDRCs) often face staff shortages, lack of training, and poor infrastructure. Strengthening these bodies can make justice more accessible. Measures include: - Mandatory training for presiding officers and staff,

Regular audits of pendency and efficiency, - Allocating dedicated funds for court infrastructure and digital tools, - Enabling mobile courts in remote areas.

8. Promoting Ethical Business Practices

Beyond regulation, encouraging ethical business conduct is vital. Certifications for "fair business" or "consumer-first companies" can incentivize businesses to maintain transparency. Encouraging corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives that focus on consumer protection, digital literacy, and grievance redressal can build trust and brand loyalty. Integrating consumer satisfaction as a metric in business evaluation—especially for startups and digital platforms—can encourage long-term compliance.

9. Leveraging Technology for Transparency

Technology can play a transformative role in reducing UTPs: - Blockchain can ensure authenticity in supply chains, - AI bots can assist consumers with rights-related queries, - Online dashboards can track company-wise complaints and resolution rates. Public data transparency, like a searchable grievance history for businesses, can guide consumers and pressure businesses to improve. Consumer protection is the backbone of a healthy economy. To truly eliminate unfair trade practices, India must move from reactive to proactive governance. By investing in awareness, digital infrastructure, legal reform, and collaborative enforcement, the country can build a robust system where fairness in trade is not an exception, but the norm. Only then can the promise of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and similar laws translate into genuine empowerment and justice for every Indian consumer.

DISCUSSION

Unfair Trade Practices (UTPs) represent a persistent threat to consumer rights and the integrity of the market. In India, various laws have been framed to regulate and restrict such practices, the most prominent being the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which provides a comprehensive

legal framework to identify, penalize, and prevent deceptive and unethical conduct by traders and service providers. However, despite a well-laid legal structure, the prevalence of UTPs across multiple sectors highlights the gap between legislation and implementation. One of the key concerns in combating UTPs is the evolving nature of trade itself. With the advent of digital markets, e-commerce platforms, online advertising, and influencer-driven product promotion, the landscape of consumer transactions has changed dramatically. Traditional regulatory tools are often insufficient to address new-age tactics like clickbait advertisements, false online reviews, algorithm-driven manipulation, or undisclosed paid partnerships.

While the 2019 Act attempts to modernize legal responses—such as the introduction of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) and the power to penalize misleading advertisements—the enforcement mechanisms are still developing. A major issue that arises is consumer unawareness. Many consumers in India, particularly in

rural areas, are unaware of their rights or the legal remedies available to them. Even when aware, the process of filing a complaint is often viewed as cumbersome, time-consuming, and costly. Though the government has launched platforms like E-Daakhil for online complaint registration, its reach and efficiency remain limited. This deters consumers from pursuing justice, allowing businesses to continue their deceptive practices unchallenged. Moreover, there is a noticeable lack of sector-specific expertise in handling UTP-related complaints. For example, in the healthcare and financial services sectors, consumers may be misled with complex jargon or promises that seem credible on the surface. Regulatory authorities often lack the technical expertise to evaluate the nuances of such complaints, leading to slow or ineffective resolutions.

In the education sector, exaggerated placement claims or unaccredited institutions continue to mislead students despite regulatory oversight. In such sectors, legal remedies must be supported by clear policy guidelines, sector-specific grievance cells, and regular audits. The advertising industry plays a crucial role in either enabling or combating UTPs. While advertisements are a legitimate tool for marketing, many companies misuse them to manipulate consumer perception. Misleading visuals, partial truths, or outright lies are often passed off under the guise of marketing strategy. While self-regulation bodies like the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) provide guidance, their recommendations are not legally binding, limiting their impact. There is a growing need to strengthen co-regulation, where both

government bodies and industry associations work together to enforce fair practices. Internationally, countries like the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia have demonstrated effective models in dealing with UTPs. In the US, for instance, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has wide powers to investigate, penalize, and ban deceptive business practices. In contrast, enforcement in India is often reactive rather than proactive. Indian regulators tend to act only after large-scale consumer harm becomes visible, rather than conducting routine audits or sting operations to prevent potential violations.

CONCLUSION

Unfair Trade Practices (UTPs) undermine the fundamental principles of honesty, transparency, and fairness in commerce. They distort healthy competition, mislead consumers, and damage public trust in businesses and institutions. Over the years, India has recognized the seriousness of these practices and has introduced a range of legislative measures to counter them, the most prominent being the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This Act, along with other sector-specific regulations, has established a strong legal foundation aimed at preventing deception, redressing consumer grievances, and deterring unethical conduct.

Despite this legal framework, UTPs continue to thrive in various forms and across multiple sectors—be it misleading advertisements in the cosmetics industry, inflated promises in the education sector, hidden charges in e-commerce platforms, or fake job offers in the employment sector. These malpractices are not only economic offenses but often cause emotional, psychological, and social harm, especially when they target vulnerable groups such as students, senior citizens, and low-income individuals. One of the major reasons why UTPs persist is the implementation gap. Laws exist, but enforcement is inconsistent and often delayed. Regulatory authorities, though empowered, are sometimes under-resourced or lack the necessary technological tools and sector-specific knowledge to act swiftly.

Furthermore, consumers frequently remain unaware of their rights or hesitant to pursue complaints due to lengthy procedures, lack of legal literacy, or fear of retaliation. To bridge this gap between policy and practice, a collaborative and consumer-centric approach is needed. Strengthening regulatory institutions like the Central Consumer Protection Authority

(CCPA) with better infrastructure, training, and technology can significantly enhance their ability to monitor and penalize UTPs. At the same time, consumer education must be prioritized—not just through occasional awareness drives, but through a systematic integration into school curricula, local community programs, and digital platforms in regional languages. Empowering consumers with knowledge will help prevent exploitation and promote active participation in safeguarding their rights. Businesses, too, have a critical role to play. Ethical conduct, voluntary self-regulation, and a commitment to transparency are vital for fostering consumer confidence and long-term brand reputation. Encouraging practices such as thirdparty audits, fair trade certification, and honest advertising can help companies align with consumer protection values while remaining competitive.

In addition, laws must continue to evolve to meet new challenges. In today’s rapidly changing economic and technological landscape, issues like data privacy, AI-based consumer manipulation, crypto-based fraud, and influencer-driven misrepresentation require forwardlooking legislation and agile enforcement. Regular policy reviews and amendments are necessary to ensure the law remains effective and relevant.