Digital Deception Under the Law: Strict Liability for Influencers, Content Creators and Platforms

Authors

Abstract

The rise of sensationalized content in Rwanda’s digital marketplace presents significant consumer protection challenges. Clickbait, fake testimonials, manipulative design patterns, and undisclosed influencer marketing compromise consumer autonomy and expose individuals to financial, health, and privacy risks. While Rwanda has consumer protection laws and policies, these remain poorly adapted to digital markets, and enforcement is limited by the requirement to prove intent in deceptive practices. This paper argues for adopting a strict liability regime to regulate commercial sensationalism and digital deception, drawing on international examples such as the EU’s Digital Services Act and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s practices. Under strict liability, content creators, influencers, and platforms promoting unverified remedies, fraudulent investments, or misleading digital services would be accountable based on harm caused, regardless of intent. This shifts the focus from proving intent to preventing actual harm, incentivizing evidence-based claims, risk disclosures, and proactive content monitoring and removal. The revised Competition and Consumer Protection Policy of 2023 provides a foundation for implementing such a framework in Rwanda, ensuring fairness, safety, and accuracy while curbing harmful marketing practices. The paper also highlights tax compliance gaps among digital actors, including influencers and platforms, suggesting coordinated enforcement by the Rwanda Revenue Authority alongside consumer protection measures. Comparative analysis shows that jurisdictions such as the EU, USA, and South Africa successfully integrate strict liability, disclosure obligations, and tax enforcement within digital consumer protection frameworks, offering practical lessons for Rwanda Keywords: Clickbait, Content Creators, Commercial Speech, dark patterns, Digital Deception, fabricated testimonial, Influencers, Strict Liability, undisclosed influencer marketing.

Table of Contents

• INTRODUCTION
• Objectives of the Research
• Legal Research Problem
• Research Questions
• 1. How does sensationalised content undermine consumer protection in Rwanda’s digital marketplace?
• 2. What are the limitations of Rwanda’s current legal framework in addressing deceptive practices by creators, influencers, and platforms?
• 3. How can a strict liability regime, informed by comparative international experiences, enhance accountability without hampering freedom of expression and innovation?
• Scope of the Research
• Research Methodology
• Significance of the Research
• LITERATURE REVIEW
• TERMINOLOGY AND KEY CONCEPTS
• COMPARATIVE ASPECT OF EUROPEAN UNION’S DIGITAL SERVICES ACT AND THE U.S. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES, UK, INDIA AND SOUTH AFRICA
• GLOBAL CASE STUDIES ON MISLEADING ADVERTISING AND DIGITAL PLATFORM ACCOUNTABILITY
• HOW DOES SENSATIONALISED CONTENT UNDERMINE CONSUMER PROTECTION IN RWANDA’S DIGITAL MARKETPLACE?
• WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS OF RWANDA’S CURRENT LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN ADDRESSING DECEPTIVE PRACTICES BY CREATORS, INFLUENCERS, AND PLATFORMS?
• HOW CAN A STRICT LIABILITY REGIME, INFORMED BY COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES, ENHANCE ACCOUNTABILITY WITHOUT HAMPERING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND INNOVATION?
• BORROWING BEST PRACTICES
• ENFORCEMENT CHALLENGES AND BALANCING CONSUMER PROTECTION WITH FREE EXPRESSION
• RESEARCH FINDINGS
• CONCLUSION
• RECOMMENDATIONS
• SCOPE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH