Skip to main content
UrbanVakeel
Live wire
Press Information BureauReforming India’s Tribunal SystemDW.comIndia: Top court hears Rahul Gandhi's Election Commission pleaReutersIndia's top court voids Yes Bank's $880 million AT-1 bond write-offLive LawRecords Of Prime Minister's Foreign Travel In IAF Aircraft Exempt From RTI : Delhi High Court Sets Aside...Bloomberg.comWhat the Supreme Court Ruling on Yes Bank Means for India’s LendersThe GuardianIndia’s supreme court demands answers over changes to voter rollLawBeat2008 Ahmedabad Serial Blasts: Supreme Court Stays Death Sentence Of Convict Mohammad TanvirCounterviewContempt petition in Supreme Court: Conserve India's rice, injunct gene-editing and GM HT cropsMLexIndia's top court denies blanket digital ban for childrenAnadolu AjansıIndia’s top court says children’s right to internet access 'fundamental'LawChakraBombay High Court To OCI Cricketers Challenging BCCI Passport Rule: Accept Indian Citizenship To Play For IndiaThe Indian ExpressYSRCP moves Supreme Court, alleges candidates being attacked ahead of Andhra civic pollsIndia TodaySupreme Court stays Mohammad Tanvir's execution in 2008 Ahmedabad blasts caseUA.NEWSIndia’s Supreme Court seeks explanations over voter lists — The Japan Timeswww.indiagazette.com"Judiciary is paramount": UP minister Om Prakash Rajbhar condemns attack on Albania's Supreme Court

Editorial

Consent fatigue: how the DPDP notice rules are reshaping consumer flows

Indian apps and websites are rewriting onboarding to fit DPDP's notice-and-consent architecture. The result is a fresh round of UX experiments — and a quieter debate about whether the user is actually reading.


By Editorial Desk2 min read
Consent fatigue: how the DPDP notice rules are reshaping consumer flows
Consent fatigue: how the DPDP notice rules are reshaping consumer flows

Within weeks of the DPDP Act's notification, every consumer-facing product team in India began the same exercise: rewriting the consent screen. The Act requires a notice that is clear, specific, and given in English plus the eighteen scheduled languages — and a consent that is free, informed, and unambiguous. For products built around a frictionless sign-up, that is a significant intervention.

From banners to scrolls

The early implementations have settled into three rough patterns. First, the long-form scroll: a single notice that lays out every purpose, every data fiduciary the user might encounter, and every retention period. Second, the layered card: a short notice with a 'read more' that opens the full statutory disclosure. Third, the just-in-time prompt: consent collected at the moment a purpose is actually invoked, rather than upfront at sign-up.

Each pattern has its defenders. The scroll is the most legally defensible — every disclosure is present and timestamped. The layered card is the easiest on conversion. The just-in-time prompt arguably maps best to how consent should work in principle, but it can feel intrusive if a user encounters six prompts in a single session.

The withdrawal problem

Section 6 of the Act gives every Data Principal the right to withdraw consent as easily as it was given. The drafting is short and unambiguous, but the operational consequences are large. A fiduciary that collected consent via a single tap at sign-up must now expose a single-tap withdrawal somewhere in the product. Many product teams have settled for a 'Manage data' screen buried in account settings — which is unlikely to meet the 'as easily as given' test in any future enforcement action.

  • Withdrawal flow must be no harder than the original consent flow.

  • Each purpose must be withdrawable independently — bundled withdrawal is acceptable as a default, but not the only option.

  • Logs must show the consent record, the withdrawal record, and the timestamp difference.

Where it lands

The pragmatic resolution will probably be a hybrid: a layered notice at sign-up plus a clearly-discoverable consent dashboard that gives the user a per-purpose view of what they have agreed to and a one-tap withdrawal for each. That model is more work than the status quo but less invasive than the just-in-time prompt. Expect the Data Protection Board's first round of guidance to push companies in that direction.

The Brief · the newsletter

Short legal explainers in your inbox.

Continue reading