Johnson & Johnson ready to pay billions in US. Why doesn't the same happen in India?
Global companies often pay large overseas settlements, but Indian consumers rarely receive similar compensation. Experts say weaker collective redress, modest damages and procedural hurdles limit relief in India.
Every now and then, headlines emerge of global companies paying millions or even billions of dollars to compensate consumers overseas.
Johnson & Johnson has offered $5.5 billion to settle tens of thousands of lawsuits in the US over claims linked to its talc products. Apple recently agreed to a proposed class-action settlement over allegations that it misled consumers about the capabilities of its artificial intelligence-powered Siri features.
Around the world, airlines, technology firms and consumer brands have faced massive compensation claims after customers challenged defective products, misleading advertisements or privacy violations.
Many of these same companies also operate in India. Indian consumers buy the same smartphones, use the same apps, fly the same airlines and purchase the same consumer products. Yet despite complaints over misleading advertisements, flight disruptions, service deficiencies and product issues, large-scale compensation for Indian consumers remains rare.
The contrast raises an obvious question: Why do consumers in some countries receive large payouts while those in India often have to fight lengthy legal battles for relatively modest relief?
Legal experts say the answer has less to do with companies treating consumers differently and more to do with the legal systems in which they operate. The availability of class-action lawsuits, the scale of damages courts can award and the strength of enforcement mechanisms significantly influence how companies assess litigation risk and decide whether to settle.
The issue has once again come into focus after a LocalCircles survey found widespread dissatisfaction among Indian consumers over grievance redressal, with a majority saying they were unable to resolve disputes despite approaching companies through available channels.
WHY MULTI-MILLION PAYOUTS ARE COMMON OVERSEAS
Alay Razvi, Managing Partner at Accord Juris, said that the biggest reason multinational companies agree to massive settlements overseas is the legal framework itself.
"Very large payouts usually arise in jurisdictions that permit broad class or collective actions, recognise substantial (including punitive) damages, and have strong enforcement by regulators and plaintiff-side lawyers," he said.
Razvi explained that in countries such as the United States and parts of Europe, millions of consumers affected by the same issue can combine their claims into a single lawsuit. This significantly increases the financial exposure for companies, making large settlements commercially viable.
"In the US and parts of Europe, a single case can aggregate the claims of millions of consumers over the same defect or practice, which makes very high settlements rational for companies," he said.
India follows a very different model.
"Similar harm is typically handled through individual complaints under the Consumer Protection Act or separate civil suits, each involving relatively modest amounts and mainly compensatory damages," Razvi explained.
Because claims are rarely consolidated into large consumer classes, companies seldom face the kind of legal exposure that results in multi-billion-dollar settlements abroad.
"Because claims are not routinely consolidated into large classes with high aggregate exposure, the legal and financial pressure that produces billion-dollar consumer settlements abroad rarely exists here," he added.
INDIA HAS THE LAW, BUT NOT THE SAME OUTCOMES
India's Consumer Protection Act, 2019 strengthened consumer rights and provides for complaints to be filed on behalf of a class of consumers in certain circumstances. However, experts say the legal framework still differs significantly from mature class-action systems seen in countries like the US.
Razvi believes the design of India's collective redress mechanism remains the biggest reason behind the gap.
"All three play a role, but the design of the legal framework for collective redress is the central factor," he said while referring to the differences in legal framework, enforcement and class-action mechanisms.
While Indian law allows representative suits under the Code of Civil Procedure and complaints on behalf of a class of consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, these mechanisms remain narrow in scope and are rarely used on a large scale.
"They are not equivalent, in practice, to US-style class actions or the newer European collective redress models," Razvi said.
He added that India's enforcement system relies more heavily on regulatory action than on large civil damages awarded to consumers.
"Enforcement in India also tends to rely more on regulatory fines, directions, and product withdrawals, rather than enormous civil payouts to individual consumers. Damages are largely compensatory, not punitive."
"As a result, even when companies are held liable, the system does not routinely translate that into very large monetary awards."
WHAT CONSUMERS ARE EXPERIENCING
The legal differences are reflected in consumers' own experiences.
A LocalCircles survey of more than 15,000 consumers across 312 districts found that 66% of respondents who faced major service deficiencies were unable to get their grievances resolved.
Among them, 36% said the service provider simply refused to address the issue. Only 5% said they eventually received relief through a consumer court, while 94% believed the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) should initiate suo motu action in cases affecting a large number of consumers.
The findings suggest that while consumers have legal remedies on paper, obtaining timely and meaningful compensation continues to remain a challenge in many cases.
CAN INDIAN CONSUMERS REALISTICALLY SEEK COLLECTIVE COMPENSATION?
While India does have provisions that allow consumers with similar grievances to pursue collective action, experts say doing so remains far more difficult in practice than in countries with established class-action systems.
According to Razvi, collective compensation is legally possible but procedural hurdles make it difficult for consumers to bring large-scale claims against multinational companies.
"Collective compensation is legally possible but practically difficult. Consumers with the same interest can file joint complaints, and the law allows actions on behalf of a class of consumers where conditions are met. Company and securities law also contemplate group actions in certain situations," he said.
However, organising thousands of affected consumers into a single legal action is far from straightforward.
"These proceedings require permission from the forum, proof of common questions of fact and law, proper representation, and effective notice to affected persons. Organising a large class, funding complex litigation, and sustaining it against a multinational defendant are substantial hurdles," Razvi explained.
As a result, most consumer disputes in India continue to be resolved individually or through regulatory intervention rather than large collective claims.
"In practice, most disputes are resolved individually or in small groups, or via regulatory intervention, rather than through large-scale collective claims that could realistically yield very high compensation," he added.
WHY COMPANIES ASSESS LEGAL RISKS DIFFERENTLY ACROSS COUNTRIES
The differing legal frameworks also influence how multinational companies respond when consumer disputes arise.
Razvi said companies routinely evaluate litigation risk on a country-by-country basis before deciding their legal strategy.
"Yes. Multinational companies routinely map legal risk jurisdiction by jurisdiction," he said.
He noted that companies operating in the US and Europe face mature class-action regimes, extensive discovery procedures, active regulators and the possibility of significant statutory or punitive damages.
"The expected cost of non-compliance with consumer and product obligations is therefore much higher," he said.
India presents a different risk profile.
"In India, while regulators and consumer fora can impose penalties and compensation, the likelihood of exposure to very large consumer damages through a single collective proceeding is relatively low, and typical awards are modest compared to overseas practice."
According to Razvi, this directly influences how companies respond to consumer disputes.
"This difference in enforcement architecture and remedial scale shapes corporate behaviour: firms tend to adopt more pre-emptive and settlement-driven strategies where the legal bite is strong, and more incremental, case-by-case responses in jurisdictions like India."
IS IT FAIR THAT CONSUMERS RECEIVE DIFFERENT TREATMENT?
For consumers, the obvious question is whether it is fair that people affected by similar issues receive compensation in one country but not another.
Tushar Kumar, Advocate at the Supreme Court of India, says the issue is legally more complex than it appears.
"From a legal perspective, the question is not one of fairness alone but of jurisdiction," he said.
According to Kumar, multinational companies are governed by the laws of each country where they operate, meaning settlements reached in one jurisdiction do not automatically create legal obligations elsewhere.
"A multinational corporation is bound by the statutory and regulatory framework of each country in which it operates. Consequently, a settlement or compensation programme in one jurisdiction does not automatically create a corresponding legal obligation elsewhere."
However, he believes consumers suffering similar harm deserve comparable remedies.
"Where consumers in different jurisdictions have suffered substantially similar harm arising from the same product defect, misleading practice or privacy breach, there is a compelling jurisprudential argument that they ought to receive comparable remedial treatment."
Kumar added that when companies compensate consumers only in jurisdictions where litigation risks are higher, it raises larger concerns about consumer rights.
"If companies voluntarily compensate consumers in markets where litigation risk is high while declining equivalent relief in jurisdictions with weaker enforcement mechanisms, it raises serious concerns about equality of consumer protection and undermines confidence in the rule of law."
WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE?
Experts believe strengthening India's collective consumer redress mechanism would significantly improve consumers' ability to seek compensation.
Kumar said India has made progress through the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, but its collective litigation framework still falls short of mature class-action jurisdictions.
"The most transformative reform would be the creation of a robust, litigation-efficient collective redress mechanism."
He noted that while the Consumer Protection Act has strengthened consumer rights, collective proceedings remain procedurally cumbersome, litigation is often prolonged and compensation awarded by courts generally remains modest.
"India still lacks a class action regime comparable in scale and effectiveness to jurisdictions such as the United States. Collective proceedings remain procedurally cumbersome, litigation is often protracted, and damages awarded are generally modest."
According to Kumar, regulators should also have clearer statutory authority to seek restitution for affected consumers instead of merely penalising companies for misconduct.
"Higher monetary penalties, mandatory corrective actions, expedited adjudication and greater use of representative proceedings would materially alter the economic calculus for corporations by making non-compliance significantly more expensive than compliance."
Every now and then, headlines emerge of global companies paying millions or even billions of dollars to compensate consumers overseas.
Johnson & Johnson has offered $5.5 billion to settle tens of thousands of lawsuits in the US over claims linked to its talc products. Apple recently agreed to a proposed class-action settlement over allegations that it misled consumers about the capabilities of its artificial intelligence-powered Siri features.
Around the world, airlines, technology firms and consumer brands have faced massive compensation claims after customers challenged defective products, misleading advertisements or privacy violations.
Many of these same companies also operate in India. Indian consumers buy the same smartphones, use the same apps, fly the same airlines and purchase the same consumer products. Yet despite complaints over misleading advertisements, flight disruptions, service deficiencies and product issues, large-scale compensation for Indian consumers remains rare.
The contrast raises an obvious question: Why do consumers in some countries receive large payouts while those in India often have to fight lengthy legal battles for relatively modest relief?
Legal experts say the answer has less to do with companies treating consumers differently and more to do with the legal systems in which they operate. The availability of class-action lawsuits, the scale of damages courts can award and the strength of enforcement mechanisms significantly influence how companies assess litigation risk and decide whether to settle.
The issue has once again come into focus after a LocalCircles survey found widespread dissatisfaction among Indian consumers over grievance redressal, with a majority saying they were unable to resolve disputes despite approaching companies through available channels.
WHY MULTI-MILLION PAYOUTS ARE COMMON OVERSEAS
Alay Razvi, Managing Partner at Accord Juris, said that the biggest reason multinational companies agree to massive settlements overseas is the legal framework itself.
"Very large payouts usually arise in jurisdictions that permit broad class or collective actions, recognise substantial (including punitive) damages, and have strong enforcement by regulators and plaintiff-side lawyers," he said.
Razvi explained that in countries such as the United States and parts of Europe, millions of consumers affected by the same issue can combine their claims into a single lawsuit. This significantly increases the financial exposure for companies, making large settlements commercially viable.
"In the US and parts of Europe, a single case can aggregate the claims of millions of consumers over the same defect or practice, which makes very high settlements rational for companies," he said.
India follows a very different model.
"Similar harm is typically handled through individual complaints under the Consumer Protection Act or separate civil suits, each involving relatively modest amounts and mainly compensatory damages," Razvi explained.
Because claims are rarely consolidated into large consumer classes, companies seldom face the kind of legal exposure that results in multi-billion-dollar settlements abroad.
"Because claims are not routinely consolidated into large classes with high aggregate exposure, the legal and financial pressure that produces billion-dollar consumer settlements abroad rarely exists here," he added.
INDIA HAS THE LAW, BUT NOT THE SAME OUTCOMES
India's Consumer Protection Act, 2019 strengthened consumer rights and provides for complaints to be filed on behalf of a class of consumers in certain circumstances. However, experts say the legal framework still differs significantly from mature class-action systems seen in countries like the US.
Razvi believes the design of India's collective redress mechanism remains the biggest reason behind the gap.
"All three play a role, but the design of the legal framework for collective redress is the central factor," he said while referring to the differences in legal framework, enforcement and class-action mechanisms.
While Indian law allows representative suits under the Code of Civil Procedure and complaints on behalf of a class of consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, these mechanisms remain narrow in scope and are rarely used on a large scale.
"They are not equivalent, in practice, to US-style class actions or the newer European collective redress models," Razvi said.
He added that India's enforcement system relies more heavily on regulatory action than on large civil damages awarded to consumers.
"Enforcement in India also tends to rely more on regulatory fines, directions, and product withdrawals, rather than enormous civil payouts to individual consumers. Damages are largely compensatory, not punitive."
"As a result, even when companies are held liable, the system does not routinely translate that into very large monetary awards."
WHAT CONSUMERS ARE EXPERIENCING
The legal differences are reflected in consumers' own experiences.
A LocalCircles survey of more than 15,000 consumers across 312 districts found that 66% of respondents who faced major service deficiencies were unable to get their grievances resolved.
Among them, 36% said the service provider simply refused to address the issue. Only 5% said they eventually received relief through a consumer court, while 94% believed the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) should initiate suo motu action in cases affecting a large number of consumers.
The findings suggest that while consumers have legal remedies on paper, obtaining timely and meaningful compensation continues to remain a challenge in many cases.
CAN INDIAN CONSUMERS REALISTICALLY SEEK COLLECTIVE COMPENSATION?
While India does have provisions that allow consumers with similar grievances to pursue collective action, experts say doing so remains far more difficult in practice than in countries with established class-action systems.
According to Razvi, collective compensation is legally possible but procedural hurdles make it difficult for consumers to bring large-scale claims against multinational companies.
"Collective compensation is legally possible but practically difficult. Consumers with the same interest can file joint complaints, and the law allows actions on behalf of a class of consumers where conditions are met. Company and securities law also contemplate group actions in certain situations," he said.
However, organising thousands of affected consumers into a single legal action is far from straightforward.
"These proceedings require permission from the forum, proof of common questions of fact and law, proper representation, and effective notice to affected persons. Organising a large class, funding complex litigation, and sustaining it against a multinational defendant are substantial hurdles," Razvi explained.
As a result, most consumer disputes in India continue to be resolved individually or through regulatory intervention rather than large collective claims.
"In practice, most disputes are resolved individually or in small groups, or via regulatory intervention, rather than through large-scale collective claims that could realistically yield very high compensation," he added.
WHY COMPANIES ASSESS LEGAL RISKS DIFFERENTLY ACROSS COUNTRIES
The differing legal frameworks also influence how multinational companies respond when consumer disputes arise.
Razvi said companies routinely evaluate litigation risk on a country-by-country basis before deciding their legal strategy.
"Yes. Multinational companies routinely map legal risk jurisdiction by jurisdiction," he said.
He noted that companies operating in the US and Europe face mature class-action regimes, extensive discovery procedures, active regulators and the possibility of significant statutory or punitive damages.
"The expected cost of non-compliance with consumer and product obligations is therefore much higher," he said.
India presents a different risk profile.
"In India, while regulators and consumer fora can impose penalties and compensation, the likelihood of exposure to very large consumer damages through a single collective proceeding is relatively low, and typical awards are modest compared to overseas practice."
According to Razvi, this directly influences how companies respond to consumer disputes.
"This difference in enforcement architecture and remedial scale shapes corporate behaviour: firms tend to adopt more pre-emptive and settlement-driven strategies where the legal bite is strong, and more incremental, case-by-case responses in jurisdictions like India."
IS IT FAIR THAT CONSUMERS RECEIVE DIFFERENT TREATMENT?
For consumers, the obvious question is whether it is fair that people affected by similar issues receive compensation in one country but not another.
Tushar Kumar, Advocate at the Supreme Court of India, says the issue is legally more complex than it appears.
"From a legal perspective, the question is not one of fairness alone but of jurisdiction," he said.
According to Kumar, multinational companies are governed by the laws of each country where they operate, meaning settlements reached in one jurisdiction do not automatically create legal obligations elsewhere.
"A multinational corporation is bound by the statutory and regulatory framework of each country in which it operates. Consequently, a settlement or compensation programme in one jurisdiction does not automatically create a corresponding legal obligation elsewhere."
However, he believes consumers suffering similar harm deserve comparable remedies.
"Where consumers in different jurisdictions have suffered substantially similar harm arising from the same product defect, misleading practice or privacy breach, there is a compelling jurisprudential argument that they ought to receive comparable remedial treatment."
Kumar added that when companies compensate consumers only in jurisdictions where litigation risks are higher, it raises larger concerns about consumer rights.
"If companies voluntarily compensate consumers in markets where litigation risk is high while declining equivalent relief in jurisdictions with weaker enforcement mechanisms, it raises serious concerns about equality of consumer protection and undermines confidence in the rule of law."
WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE?
Experts believe strengthening India's collective consumer redress mechanism would significantly improve consumers' ability to seek compensation.
Kumar said India has made progress through the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, but its collective litigation framework still falls short of mature class-action jurisdictions.
"The most transformative reform would be the creation of a robust, litigation-efficient collective redress mechanism."
He noted that while the Consumer Protection Act has strengthened consumer rights, collective proceedings remain procedurally cumbersome, litigation is often prolonged and compensation awarded by courts generally remains modest.
"India still lacks a class action regime comparable in scale and effectiveness to jurisdictions such as the United States. Collective proceedings remain procedurally cumbersome, litigation is often protracted, and damages awarded are generally modest."
According to Kumar, regulators should also have clearer statutory authority to seek restitution for affected consumers instead of merely penalising companies for misconduct.
"Higher monetary penalties, mandatory corrective actions, expedited adjudication and greater use of representative proceedings would materially alter the economic calculus for corporations by making non-compliance significantly more expensive than compliance."
Every now and then, headlines emerge of global companies paying millions or even billions of dollars to compensate consumers overseas.
Johnson & Johnson has offered $5.5 billion to settle tens of thousands of lawsuits in the US over claims linked to its talc products. Apple recently agreed to a proposed class-action settlement over allegations that it misled consumers about the capabilities of its artificial intelligence-powered Siri features.
Around the world, airlines, technology firms and consumer brands have faced massive compensation claims after customers challenged defective products, misleading advertisements or privacy violations.
Many of these same companies also operate in India. Indian consumers buy the same smartphones, use the same apps, fly the same airlines and purchase the same consumer products. Yet despite complaints over misleading advertisements, flight disruptions, service deficiencies and product issues, large-scale compensation for Indian consumers remains rare.
The contrast raises an obvious question: Why do consumers in some countries receive large payouts while those in India often have to fight lengthy legal battles for relatively modest relief?
Legal experts say the answer has less to do with companies treating consumers differently and more to do with the legal systems in which they operate. The availability of class-action lawsuits, the scale of damages courts can award and the strength of enforcement mechanisms significantly influence how companies assess litigation risk and decide whether to settle.
The issue has once again come into focus after a LocalCircles survey found widespread dissatisfaction among Indian consumers over grievance redressal, with a majority saying they were unable to resolve disputes despite approaching companies through available channels.
WHY MULTI-MILLION PAYOUTS ARE COMMON OVERSEAS
Alay Razvi, Managing Partner at Accord Juris, said that the biggest reason multinational companies agree to massive settlements overseas is the legal framework itself.
"Very large payouts usually arise in jurisdictions that permit broad class or collective actions, recognise substantial (including punitive) damages, and have strong enforcement by regulators and plaintiff-side lawyers," he said.
Razvi explained that in countries such as the United States and parts of Europe, millions of consumers affected by the same issue can combine their claims into a single lawsuit. This significantly increases the financial exposure for companies, making large settlements commercially viable.
"In the US and parts of Europe, a single case can aggregate the claims of millions of consumers over the same defect or practice, which makes very high settlements rational for companies," he said.
India follows a very different model.
"Similar harm is typically handled through individual complaints under the Consumer Protection Act or separate civil suits, each involving relatively modest amounts and mainly compensatory damages," Razvi explained.
Because claims are rarely consolidated into large consumer classes, companies seldom face the kind of legal exposure that results in multi-billion-dollar settlements abroad.
"Because claims are not routinely consolidated into large classes with high aggregate exposure, the legal and financial pressure that produces billion-dollar consumer settlements abroad rarely exists here," he added.
INDIA HAS THE LAW, BUT NOT THE SAME OUTCOMES
India's Consumer Protection Act, 2019 strengthened consumer rights and provides for complaints to be filed on behalf of a class of consumers in certain circumstances. However, experts say the legal framework still differs significantly from mature class-action systems seen in countries like the US.
Razvi believes the design of India's collective redress mechanism remains the biggest reason behind the gap.
"All three play a role, but the design of the legal framework for collective redress is the central factor," he said while referring to the differences in legal framework, enforcement and class-action mechanisms.
While Indian law allows representative suits under the Code of Civil Procedure and complaints on behalf of a class of consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, these mechanisms remain narrow in scope and are rarely used on a large scale.
"They are not equivalent, in practice, to US-style class actions or the newer European collective redress models," Razvi said.
He added that India's enforcement system relies more heavily on regulatory action than on large civil damages awarded to consumers.
"Enforcement in India also tends to rely more on regulatory fines, directions, and product withdrawals, rather than enormous civil payouts to individual consumers. Damages are largely compensatory, not punitive."
"As a result, even when companies are held liable, the system does not routinely translate that into very large monetary awards."
WHAT CONSUMERS ARE EXPERIENCING
The legal differences are reflected in consumers' own experiences.
A LocalCircles survey of more than 15,000 consumers across 312 districts found that 66% of respondents who faced major service deficiencies were unable to get their grievances resolved.
Among them, 36% said the service provider simply refused to address the issue. Only 5% said they eventually received relief through a consumer court, while 94% believed the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) should initiate suo motu action in cases affecting a large number of consumers.
The findings suggest that while consumers have legal remedies on paper, obtaining timely and meaningful compensation continues to remain a challenge in many cases.
CAN INDIAN CONSUMERS REALISTICALLY SEEK COLLECTIVE COMPENSATION?
While India does have provisions that allow consumers with similar grievances to pursue collective action, experts say doing so remains far more difficult in practice than in countries with established class-action systems.
According to Razvi, collective compensation is legally possible but procedural hurdles make it difficult for consumers to bring large-scale claims against multinational companies.
"Collective compensation is legally possible but practically difficult. Consumers with the same interest can file joint complaints, and the law allows actions on behalf of a class of consumers where conditions are met. Company and securities law also contemplate group actions in certain situations," he said.
However, organising thousands of affected consumers into a single legal action is far from straightforward.
"These proceedings require permission from the forum, proof of common questions of fact and law, proper representation, and effective notice to affected persons. Organising a large class, funding complex litigation, and sustaining it against a multinational defendant are substantial hurdles," Razvi explained.
As a result, most consumer disputes in India continue to be resolved individually or through regulatory intervention rather than large collective claims.
"In practice, most disputes are resolved individually or in small groups, or via regulatory intervention, rather than through large-scale collective claims that could realistically yield very high compensation," he added.
WHY COMPANIES ASSESS LEGAL RISKS DIFFERENTLY ACROSS COUNTRIES
The differing legal frameworks also influence how multinational companies respond when consumer disputes arise.
Razvi said companies routinely evaluate litigation risk on a country-by-country basis before deciding their legal strategy.
"Yes. Multinational companies routinely map legal risk jurisdiction by jurisdiction," he said.
He noted that companies operating in the US and Europe face mature class-action regimes, extensive discovery procedures, active regulators and the possibility of significant statutory or punitive damages.
"The expected cost of non-compliance with consumer and product obligations is therefore much higher," he said.
India presents a different risk profile.
"In India, while regulators and consumer fora can impose penalties and compensation, the likelihood of exposure to very large consumer damages through a single collective proceeding is relatively low, and typical awards are modest compared to overseas practice."
According to Razvi, this directly influences how companies respond to consumer disputes.
"This difference in enforcement architecture and remedial scale shapes corporate behaviour: firms tend to adopt more pre-emptive and settlement-driven strategies where the legal bite is strong, and more incremental, case-by-case responses in jurisdictions like India."
IS IT FAIR THAT CONSUMERS RECEIVE DIFFERENT TREATMENT?
For consumers, the obvious question is whether it is fair that people affected by similar issues receive compensation in one country but not another.
Tushar Kumar, Advocate at the Supreme Court of India, says the issue is legally more complex than it appears.
"From a legal perspective, the question is not one of fairness alone but of jurisdiction," he said.
According to Kumar, multinational companies are governed by the laws of each country where they operate, meaning settlements reached in one jurisdiction do not automatically create legal obligations elsewhere.
"A multinational corporation is bound by the statutory and regulatory framework of each country in which it operates. Consequently, a settlement or compensation programme in one jurisdiction does not automatically create a corresponding legal obligation elsewhere."
However, he believes consumers suffering similar harm deserve comparable remedies.
"Where consumers in different jurisdictions have suffered substantially similar harm arising from the same product defect, misleading practice or privacy breach, there is a compelling jurisprudential argument that they ought to receive comparable remedial treatment."
Kumar added that when companies compensate consumers only in jurisdictions where litigation risks are higher, it raises larger concerns about consumer rights.
"If companies voluntarily compensate consumers in markets where litigation risk is high while declining equivalent relief in jurisdictions with weaker enforcement mechanisms, it raises serious concerns about equality of consumer protection and undermines confidence in the rule of law."
WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE?
Experts believe strengthening India's collective consumer redress mechanism would significantly improve consumers' ability to seek compensation.
Kumar said India has made progress through the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, but its collective litigation framework still falls short of mature class-action jurisdictions.
"The most transformative reform would be the creation of a robust, litigation-efficient collective redress mechanism."
He noted that while the Consumer Protection Act has strengthened consumer rights, collective proceedings remain procedurally cumbersome, litigation is often prolonged and compensation awarded by courts generally remains modest.
"India still lacks a class action regime comparable in scale and effectiveness to jurisdictions such as the United States. Collective proceedings remain procedurally cumbersome, litigation is often protracted, and damages awarded are generally modest."
According to Kumar, regulators should also have clearer statutory authority to seek restitution for affected consumers instead of merely penalising companies for misconduct.
"Higher monetary penalties, mandatory corrective actions, expedited adjudication and greater use of representative proceedings would materially alter the economic calculus for corporations by making non-compliance significantly more expensive than compliance."
