Data Privacy Risks for Media, Ad-Tech and Influencer Ecosystems Under India’s DPDP Regime: Profiling, Persuasion and Platform Power

Posted On - 10 February, 2026 • By - Aniket Ghosh

Introduction: Advertising as the Most Data-Intensive Business Model

Few industries depend on personal data as fundamentally as media, advertising and digital influence. News platforms, social media companies, ad-tech intermediaries, influencer networks and content monetisation engines are built on one core activity: profiling individuals in order to predict, influence and monetise behaviour meaning they are likely to encounter more data privacy risks.

Clicks, scroll depth, watch time, dwell rate, purchase intent, device metadata, inferred interests, political leanings and emotional triggers form the backbone of the modern attention economy. Unlike financial or healthcare data, advertising data is often perceived as “low risk.” In reality, it is behavioural, persistent and deeply revealing capable of shaping beliefs, consumption patterns and even democratic outcomes.

With the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (“DPDP Rules”), India has introduced a framework that strikes at the heart of the ad-tech business model. Consent, purpose limitation, children’s data restrictions and accountability obligations now pose structural challenges to legacy advertising practices.

Applicability of the DPDP Act to Media and Ad-Tech Ecosystems

A. Entities Covered

The DPDP Act applies to any entity processing digital personal data, including:

  • Digital news and media platforms
  • Social media companies
  • Ad-tech intermediaries and DSPs/SSPs
  • Programmatic advertising platforms
  • Influencer marketing agencies
  • Content monetisation and analytics providers
  • Affiliate marketing and tracking platforms

Both Indian and foreign entities targeting Indian users fall within scope.

B. Media and Ad-Tech Players as Data Fiduciaries

Most entities in the advertising ecosystem qualify as data fiduciaries, as they determine:

  • What user data is collected
  • How profiling is conducted
  • How ads are targeted and delivered
  • Whether data is shared across platforms

This applies even where data is collected indirectly through cookies, SDKs, pixels or device fingerprinting.

Third-party vendors including analytics providers, attribution tools, and ad servers act as data processors, but fiduciary liability remains primary. Large platforms may be designated as Significant Data Fiduciaries (SDFs) due to:

  • Scale of profiling
  • Influence on public discourse
  • Involvement of children and vulnerable users

Behavioural Profiling: The Central Compliance Risk

A. What Is Behavioural Profiling?

Behavioural profiling involves analysing:

  • Browsing and viewing behaviour
  • Interaction patterns
  • Purchase and intent signals
  • Inferred interests and preferences

Even where identifiers are pseudonymised, such data often remains personal data under the DPDP Act if individuals can be re-identified or reasonably inferred.

B. Why Regulators Are Concerned

Profiling enables:

  • Psychological targeting
  • Manipulation of choice architecture
  • Exploitation of cognitive biases
  • Discriminatory ad delivery

The DPDP Act reframes profiling as high-risk processing, requiring strict scrutiny of consent, purpose and proportionality.

Under the DPDP Act, consent must be free, informed, specific, unambiguous and capable of withdrawal. In advertising contexts, common practices such as: “Accept all cookies to continue”, Bundled consent for analytics and ads, and Default opt-in tracking are increasingly vulnerable to challenge.

B. DPDP Rules: Transparency and Notice Obligations

The DPDP Rules require clear disclosure of:

  • Categories of personal data collected
  • Purpose of processing (including targeted advertising)
  • Third-party sharing
  • Retention practices
  • Grievance redressal mechanisms

Cookie banners and privacy notices that obscure profiling logic or ad-tech partnerships are unlikely to satisfy Indian regulators.

Dark Patterns and Manipulative Design

A. Advertising and UX Manipulation

Dark patterns in advertising include:

  • Misleading consent banners
  • Hidden opt-outs
  • Emotional manipulation through urgency
  • Deceptive influencer endorsements

Such practices undermine free and informed consent, rendering data processing unlawful.

B. Enforcement Trajectory

Regulators are increasingly viewing dark patterns as:

  • Consent vitiation mechanisms
  • Consumer harm tools
  • Structural compliance failures

Ad-tech platforms built on aggressive growth tactics face elevated enforcement risk.

Children’s Data and Advertising Restrictions

A. Children as a Protected Category

Under the DPDP Act, any user below 18 years is a child. This has sweeping implications for:

  • Social media platforms
  • Video and gaming-adjacent content
  • Influencer-driven youth marketing

B. Prohibition on Targeted Advertising

The DPDP Act restricts behavioural tracking and targeted advertising directed at children. This directly impacts:

  • Kid-focused content monetisation
  • Influencer marketing to minors
  • Ad-supported educational and entertainment platforms

Self-declared age gates and “kids mode” features may be insufficient.

Influencer Marketing and Data Responsibility

A. Influencers as Data Intermediaries

Influencers increasingly collect and process:

  • Follower engagement data
  • Direct messages and contact information
  • Contest and giveaway submissions

Where influencers determine purpose and means of processing, they may themselves qualify as data fiduciaries, not merely brand extensions.

B. Brands, Agencies and Shared Liability

Ambiguity often exists around:

  • Who provides notice and obtains consent
  • Who bears breach liability
  • Who controls data retention

Brands and agencies may face joint exposure where governance is unclear.

Ad-Tech Supply Chains and Third-Party Risk

A. Programmatic Complexity

Programmatic advertising involves:

  • Multiple intermediaries
  • Real-time data sharing
  • Cross-platform profiling

Each node in the supply chain represents a potential compliance failure point.

B. SDKs, Pixels and Uncontrolled Data Flows

Unvetted SDKs and tracking pixels can:

  • Leak data to unknown entities
  • Enable unauthorised profiling
  • Create breach and liability exposure

The DPDP Act places responsibility on the primary platform, not just downstream vendors.

Cross-Border Data Transfers in Advertising

Ad-tech ecosystems are inherently global. Data is routinely transferred for Analytics, Attribution, and Ad delivery. Under the DPDP Act, transfers are permitted only to government-notified jurisdictions, requiring platforms to:

  • Map ad-tech data flows
  • Monitor regulatory notifications
  • Reassess global advertising stacks

Data Breaches and Reputational Fallout

A. Mandatory Breach Notification

Under the DPDP Act and Rules, platforms must notify the Data Protection Board of India and the affected users. Breaches involving profiling data can reveal:

  • Personal preferences
  • Political or religious inferences
  • Sensitive behavioural traits

B. Trust and Platform Viability

In the media and advertising sector, loss of trust directly affects traffic, engagement and revenue. Privacy failures can therefore have existential consequences.

Penalties and Enforcement Exposure

A. Monetary Penalties

The DPDP Act authorises penalties up to INR 250 crore per contravention, assessed based on:

  • Nature of data involved
  • Scale of profiling
  • Impact on children or vulnerable groups
  • Mitigation measures taken

Ad-tech platforms face systemic exposure due to scale and automation.

B. Business Model Disruption

Beyond penalties, enforcement may result in:

  • Forced redesign of ad systems
  • Restrictions on profiling
  • Loss of advertiser confidence
  • Investor scrutiny

Compliance Roadmap for Media and Ad-Tech Businesses

1. Profiling and Data Mapping: Document all behavioural data flows and purposes.

3. Children’s Data Safeguards: Implement robust age-gating and ad restrictions.

4. Vendor and SDK Audits: Review all third-party tracking technologies.

Conclusion: Advertising in a Post-Surveillance Era

The DPDP Act and Rules signal a clear regulatory shift: unfettered behavioural surveillance is no longer a legitimate price for “free” content. Media and advertising businesses must transition from opaque profiling to consent-driven, proportionate and transparent models.

Those who adapt early by reducing profiling excesses and treating user attention with respect shall not only mitigate enforcement risk but also build durable trust in an increasingly privacy-aware digital economy.