The ( ) has ordered , operating under the brand name ‘ ’, to immediately discontinue its "add-on" feature, which prompted consumers to pay additional amounts to secure ride bookings. In a final order dated , the Authority imposed a penalty of ₹10 lakh on the , concluding that the practice amounted to , , and the use of prohibited " " under the .
The regulatory action follows a prolonged investigation into the platform’s interface design, which consistently suggested that offering an advance tip—or "add-on"—could accelerate the ride confirmation process. The found that this mechanism effectively conditioned service delivery on an extra payment, creating an artificial sense of urgency and scarcity that forced users to pay beyond the base fare already calculated by the company’s algorithms.
Investigation Uncovers Systemic Algorithmic Discrepancies
The inquiry into
’s ride-hailing interface revealed a stark contradiction between the platform’s public representations and its internal operational data. While the app encouraged consumers to pay extra to
"improve your chances of quicker ride confirmation,"
the data provided by the company for major metropolitan cities demonstrated that requests accompanied by an add-on amount often experienced lower acceptance rates than standard requests.
During the hearings, the underscored that the had failed to substantiate the alleged benefit of these payments. The Authority noted that the platform’s algorithm appeared to be the primary driver of ride allocation, yet the interface design deceptively suggested that consumer-led tipping could influence or bypass these standardized processes. The investigation report highlighted that, far from being a voluntary gesture, the tipping mechanism exerted psychological pressure on users at a critical moment of decision-making.
In its detailed judgment, the
emphasized the
of the solicitations, noting:
"The solicitation of an advance tip/add-on before acceptance of the ride, in amounts generated by the opposite party’s platform, coupled with the representation that such payment improves the chances of a quicker ride, is an unfair method and a deceptive practice adopted for the provision of a service and constitutes an unfair trade practice within the meaning of
."
Escalation of Consumer Fees Raises Regulatory Alarm
The ’s proceedings highlighted a concerning trend regarding the "normalization" of extra payments. As the practice became more widespread, the requested amounts for these "add-ons" showed a steady upward trajectory. What began as modest prompts for ₹10 or ₹20 evolved over several months into pre-set suggestions reaching as high as ₹140, with the interface even permitting custom entries up to ₹499. The Authority expressed concern that if left unchecked, these escalations would effectively become a standard, hidden cost for basic mobility services.
The company argued that the add-on feature was a purely voluntary tool designed to make commercially unviable rides more attractive to drivers, particularly those involving long distances to reach a passenger. However, the rejected this justification, pointing out that existing regulations, including those from the , already account for such variables within the base fare and peak pricing structures. The Authority reasoned that shifting the burden of driver compensation onto the consumer through undisclosed, variable amounts was not a permissible trade practice.
Furthermore, the noted that by introducing these prompts during the window between a booking request and driver acceptance, the platform was essentially monetizing "stock-out" situations—conditions where demand exceeds supply—without transparently informing the user of actual market conditions. This imbalance of information, the ruled, placed the consumer at a significant disadvantage, turning an ordinary contractual offer into a coerced financial commitment.
Regulatory Mandate Targets Modern Dark Pattern Tactics
A central component of the ’s ruling was the classification of the tipping interface as a "dark pattern." Under the , the Authority identified the interface as a form of " ." By framing the option to tip as a way to "boost" the chances of success, the app inherently implied that those who refused to pay would be penalized with longer wait times or service denial.
The Authority’s judgment observed:
"By representing that a payment will 'boost' or 'improve' the chances of getting a ride sooner or of quicker confirmation, the prompts necessarily convey the converse, namely, that a consumer who declines to pay faces a slower ride or no ride at all. The prompts thereby create a sense of apprehension of delay or denial of an already-booked service, which is a sense of fear within the meaning of
, so as to nudge the consumer into making an additional payment."
Despite ’s attempts to modify the interface by removing the word "tip" and rebranding it as an "add-on," the maintained that the fundamental mechanism remained unchanged. The Authority concluded that relabeling did not mitigate the deceptive nature of the solicitation. The final order mandates that the company must immediately cease all such prompts, including any variation that nudges or pressures consumers into additional payments before a journey is completed.
The has also directed the company to submit a formal compliance report within 15 days of the receipt of the order. The penalty of ₹10 lakh is to be deposited within the same timeframe. This ruling aligns with the recent amendments to the , which strictly limit tipping features to post-service interactions, ensuring that gratuity remains a voluntary expression of appreciation rather than a functional requirement for service delivery. The decision serves as a broader warning to digital aggregators that the use of manipulative interface designs to generate revenue through will not be tolerated under the current consumer protection framework.
algorithmic manipulation - consumer autonomy
