ABSTRACT This study examines personalized algorithmic pricing and consumer protection across three major jurisdictions the United States, European Union, and India analyzing how artificial intelligence‐driven pricing systems challenge traditional regulatory frameworks and threaten consumer autonomy. The research adopts a comparative methodology combining doctrinal legal analysis with empirical examination of enforcement patterns, scrutinizing recent regulatory developments including the EU's Digital Services Act, the US Department of Justice's RealPage litigation, and India's Consumer Protection Act amendments. The central argument demonstrates that transparency‐only approaches prove fundamentally inadequate in addressing algorithmic filter bubbles and market concentration. Evidence from India's fast‐commerce sector reveals sophisticated discrimination patterns, including device‐based pricing differentials and usage‐pattern exploitation, while “hub‐and‐spoke conspiracies” enable algorithmic collusion without explicit coordination between competitors. Key findings of study that existing legal frameworks, designed for pre‐digital markets, cannot effectively address technologically sophisticated forms of consumer harm and market manipulation. The study identifies critical gaps in jurisdictional approaches: India's reactive consumer protection model, the EU's proactive transparency requirements, and the US's antitrust‐centric enforcement. The research proposes moving beyond disclosure paradigms toward “information enrichment” mandates requiring platforms to actively diversify algorithmic recommendations, coupled with user‐controlled choice architectures and structural market reforms. These interventions, aligned with fundamental rights principles requiring states to serve as ultimate guarantors of diversity offering pathways for regulatory frameworks that balance technological innovation with consumer welfare and market competition. This article is categorized under: Commercial, Legal, and Ethical Issues > Legal Issues Commercial, Legal, and Ethical Issues > Ethical Considerations Commercial, Legal, and Ethical Issues > Security and Privacy
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Varda Mone
Abhishek Thommandru
Фазилов Фарход Маратович
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery
Alliance University
Tashkent State University of Law
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Mone et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/698827c90fc35cd7a8846c77 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.70070