Meta tag hijacking runs wild as regulators look away until pushed

New Delhi: Have you ever searched for a specific brand, product, or website, only to land on something entirely different? Maybe a vaguely similar-looking page or a competitor’s offer disguised under familiar keywords? If you’ve felt that subtle sense of being misled, you’re not alone.

In the pursuit of visibility and conversions, the lines that once separated ethical search engine optimisation (SEO) from manipulative marketing are rapidly blurring. What was once considered black-hat is now disguised as a clever hack. Meta tag manipulation, keyword hijacking, misleading schema markup, and the embedding of competitor names in metadata have become alarmingly common across sectors. These tactics, although hidden from users, can significantly alter what appears in search results, confuse potential customers, and, more crucially, erode trust in the digital ecosystem.

Alarmingly, these practices not only persist but have become so normalised within the industry that they’re rarely even called out.

Praveen Kumar V, Founder & CEO of Thriftizer Solutions LLP, explained it from an adtech perspective.  “Sleazy tricks with tactics like keyword stuffing and misleading meta descriptions erode trust with users and game the algorithms.” 

Kumar admitted that temptations run high, “Even large companies find it difficult to ignore these tactics due to increasing demands for visibility and CTRs. While the intention may not be entirely unethical, the outcome usually is.”

Girish Bindal, Chief Marketing Officer of advantageclub.ai, offered a sobering industry lens: “Over the last twenty years, I’ve witnessed it evolve from copycat websites in classifieds, to fake reviews and brand hijacking in e-commerce, to today’s keyword poaching and unfair comparison blogs in B2B.” While his team invests in monitoring branded terms and reporting offenders, he concedes, “Honestly, a lot of these tricks fly under the radar unless you’re actively monitoring.”

At the heart of the problem lies a growth-at-any-cost mentality. Bindal added, “Everyone wants fast results. When dashboards report higher traffic and impressive CAC metrics, no one questions the means. These tactics might deliver a short bump in visibility, but they rarely contribute to sustainable, genuine growth.”

What makes this digital erosion more dangerous is how platform oversight and algorithmic detection are struggling to keep pace. “AI is good at recognising patterns, but bad at understanding context and inferring intent,” said Praveen Kumar. He believes that even sophisticated tools fail to draw the line between clever optimisation and outright trickery. “The industry requires tougher discipline from the side of the search engines. But the onus is equally on individual brands and marketers,” he added.

This is echoed by Bindal as well, “most policing is reactive, not proactive. While platforms like Google and Meta have established policies, action typically occurs only after someone files a complaint. Many unethical practices operate in a grey area; it’s not outright breaking the rules. I’ve seen sites blacklisted/shadow-banned overnight by link-building schemes that finally got penalised, while others continue unchecked with low-value, AI-generated content.”

“From my experience, if top leadership embraces grey-zone tactics, their teams will follow, but unless you build a strong internal culture of ethical marketing, the platform rules won’t help much. Nothing can take the place of a genuine commitment to ethical marketing,” he warned.

Gopa Kumar Menon, founder of theblurr, offered a deeper macro lens. “We're talking about a multi-billion dollar problem that touches every corner of digital marketing.” He also pointed out that misuse isn’t always malicious; in some cases, especially in India, smaller brands don’t even realise they’re doing something unethical.

“My advice for people who want to do this is to explain the risks. It might seem like clever growth hacking, but it's playing with fire,” he cautioned.

Across the board, industry leaders agree that the cat-and-mouse nature of digital enforcement makes the issue hard to contain. Misspellings, abbreviations, transliteration, and buried metadata allow bad actors to remain steps ahead of automated systems.

Menon has dealt with such violations firsthand. His team follows a methodical approach, first documenting evidence, then taking it up with platforms and legal channels.

“When confronted with such violations, our team documents everything and takes a two-pronged approach, reporting via official ad platforms and escalating legally. Most of the time, a cease and desist letter from legal gets results faster than platform reporting. Platforms have conflicting incentives; every click generates revenue for them, even if it comes from questionable tactics,” he noted.

And the consequences are far from trivial. Kumar noted that “Ad fraud alone is predicted to hit $84 billion in losses.” Bindal estimated that companies lose “20–25% of their traffic to misleading competitor ads or fake content.” Menon added a conservative figure: “Brands are losing 15–20% of their organic search traffic when competitors successfully hijack their brand terms.”

But beyond the numbers, the reputational damage and customer confusion may be even more damaging. As Menon pointed out, “Most companies treat this as a cost of doing business rather than something that needs to be actively fought. That acceptance is exactly why these tactics keep spreading.”

Legal and regulatory oversight in India

While meta tag misuse is becoming more widespread in digital marketing, India’s legal system hasn’t fully kept pace. Tactics like embedding a competitor’s brand name in hidden tags to divert traffic often go unchecked, not due to the absence of laws, but because enforcement is weak and regulatory clarity is lacking. Independent counsel Rajkumar Varier laid bare the gaps, as well as the existing legal pathways available to tackle such practices.

Under Section 29(6) and 29(8) of the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999, the non-visible use of a trademark, even within meta tags, may amount to infringement if it takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the trademark. Courts in India, including in the Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Co. case, have acknowledged that even indirect or non-visible usage can constitute infringement if it leads to consumer confusion.

Additionally, Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines “unfair trade practice” in a way that could be interpreted to include misleading digital advertising tactics. If meta tag manipulation leads consumers to believe they are engaging with one brand but end up with another, it qualifies as deception, especially when used to hijack brand trust or divert traffic.

Further, under the Competition Act, 2002, if it can be shown that such practices have an “appreciable adverse effect on competition,” they may trigger intervention from the Competition Commission of India (CCI). Although rare, this opens the door to regulatory scrutiny, especially when the digital conduct of one player undermines fair access to markets for others.

The Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Sections 66C and 72, can also be invoked in instances where deceptive online practices intersect with unauthorised access, identity misuse, or breach of data confidentiality. And while ASCI (Advertising Standards Council of India) has voluntary guidelines against misleading ads, they currently do not go far enough to address the invisible layers of manipulation enabled through back-end metadata.

Despite this patchwork of legal instruments, meaningful enforcement remains the exception, not the norm.  No landmark Supreme Court ruling, unlike People Interactive India Pvt. Ltd. v. Vivek Pahwa, which addressed domain name misuse, has explicitly tackled meta tag manipulation.

According to Independent Counsel Raj Kumar Varier, “The covert use of competitor names or trademarks in meta tags to manipulate search engine results is a subtle yet insidious form of digital misrepresentation. In India, this practice treads a legal grey zone, deserving urgent regulatory scrutiny to protect brands and consumers alike.”

Part of the challenge lies in proving misuse. “The factors which hinder action probably could be: First, proving meta tag misuse demands technical expertise and digital forensics, deterring resource-strapped brands. Secondly, courts require a robust prima facie case for interim relief, raising the bar for swift justice. Third, the industry often normalises such tactics as guerrilla marketing, fostering a culture of ethical ambiguity,” said Varier.

Globally, the conversation is more mature. Varier underscored that in Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., a U.S. court held that non-visible trademark use (in meta tags or keyword advertising) could mislead consumers and constitute unfair commercial behaviour. Though India lacks a comparable landmark ruling that touched upon domain name misuse.

To fix this, the Varier recommended a three-pronged framework:

1. ASCI must introduce a Digital Advertising Code that clearly defines and prohibits back-end manipulative tactics, including deceptive meta tagging.
   

2. The CCI should examine whether large-scale misuse of brand keywords creates structural unfairness in the digital marketplace.
   

3. Ministries like MIB, MeitY, and DPIIT must come together to draft a Digital Marketing and IP Use Code, drawing on global regulatory models.

The industry is at a tipping point. If these shortcuts keep getting normalised, restoring trust will be an uphill battle. Ethical marketing is no longer just the high road. It must be the only road.

“In a digital-first economy, trust is paramount. Meta tag misuse, which erodes it insidiously, must be addressed not with reactive litigation but with proactive legal reform,” Varier noted. Gopa Kumar Menon echoed this sentiment, adding, “No regulation can substitute for people simply choosing to do the right thing.”