AI and Consumer Rights in India Working Paper

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.12863v1
• Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 06:21:58 GMT
• Title: AI and Consumer Rights in India Working Paper
• Abstract summary: This working paper examines whether India's Consumer Protection Act, 2019, adequately addresses harm caused by defective AI products and services.<n>The Act's broad definitions of product liability, harm, and deficiency appear technology agnostic, but significant gaps remain.<n>Proving causation between AI defects and consumer harm presents a technical challenge.<n>Current liability frameworks lack proportionate mechanisms to effectively address complex, multistakeholder AI harms.
• Score: 5.056582586833467
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• 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.

Related papers

• Human Attribution of Causality to AI Across Agency, Misuse, and Misalignment [0.0]
  This paper investigates folk perceptions of causal responsibility in causal chain structures when AI systems are involved in harmful outcomes.<n>We conduct human experiments to examine judgments of causality, blame, foreseeability, and counterfactual reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-17T02:48:39Z)
• Recourse, Repair, Reparation, & Prevention: A Stakeholder Analysis of AI Supply Chains [1.0981736183508215]
  Supply chains for AI systems are often the product of AI supply chains (AISC)<n>We consider who participates in AISCs, what harms they face, where sources of harm lie, and how market dynamics and power differentials inform the type and probability of remedies.<n>We offer a typology of responses to AISC-induced harms: recourse, repair, reparation or prevention.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T14:12:43Z)
• Who is Responsible When AI Fails? Mapping Causes, Entities, and Consequences of AI Privacy and Ethical Incidents [31.53910982726317]
  We analyzed 202 real-world AI privacy and ethical incidents to develop a taxonomy.<n>Our findings reveal widespread harms from poor organizational decisions and legal non-compliance.<n>Our findings provide actionable guidance for policymakers and practitioners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-28T21:57:38Z)
• Position: Mind the Gap-the Growing Disconnect Between Established Vulnerability Disclosure and AI Security [56.219994752894294]
  We argue that adapting existing processes for AI security reporting is doomed to fail due to fundamental shortcomings for the distinctive characteristics of AI systems.<n>Based on our proposal to address these shortcomings, we discuss an approach to AI security reporting and how the new AI paradigm, AI agents, will further reinforce the need for specialized AI security incident reporting advancements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T13:50:26Z)
• Causal Responsibility Attribution for Human-AI Collaboration [62.474732677086855]
  This paper presents a causal framework using Structural Causal Models (SCMs) to systematically attribute responsibility in human-AI systems. Two case studies illustrate the framework's adaptability in diverse human-AI collaboration scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T17:17:45Z)
• What's my role? Modelling responsibility for AI-based safety-critical systems [1.0549609328807565]
  It is difficult for developers and manufacturers to be held responsible for harmful behaviour of an AI-SCS. A human operator can become a "liability sink" absorbing blame for the consequences of AI-SCS outputs they weren't responsible for creating. This paper considers different senses of responsibility (role, moral, legal and causal), and how they apply in the context of AI-SCS safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-30T13:45:36Z)
• A risk-based approach to assessing liability risk for AI-driven harms considering EU liability directive [0.0]
  Historical instances of harm caused by AI have led to European Union establishing an AI Liability Directive. The future ability of provider to contest a product liability claim will depend on good practices adopted in designing, developing, and maintaining AI systems. This paper provides a risk-based approach to examining liability for AI-driven injuries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-18T15:52:43Z)
• Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress [171.05448842016125]
  We describe risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. There is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:59:06Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• Seamful XAI: Operationalizing Seamful Design in Explainable AI [59.89011292395202]
  Mistakes in AI systems are inevitable, arising from both technical limitations and sociotechnical gaps. We propose that seamful design can foster AI explainability by revealing sociotechnical and infrastructural mismatches. We explore this process with 43 AI practitioners and real end-users.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-12T21:54:05Z)
• Building Bridges: Generative Artworks to Explore AI Ethics [56.058588908294446]
  In recent years, there has been an increased emphasis on understanding and mitigating adverse impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies on society. A significant challenge in the design of ethical AI systems is that there are multiple stakeholders in the AI pipeline, each with their own set of constraints and interests. This position paper outlines some potential ways in which generative artworks can play this role by serving as accessible and powerful educational tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-25T22:31:55Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.