Abstract

India’s EdTech sector, projected to exceed $10 billion in valuation by 2025, has transformed the educational ecosystem, yet suffers from an underdeveloped contractual governance. Nestled deep within these platform Terms of Service lie complex dispute resolution clauses, typically arbitration, that are often unread, misunderstood, or inaccessible to key stakeholders: minors, their guardians , and young adults. This paper critically examines how the structural design of arbitration and dispute clauses in EdTech agreements undermines fundamental legal principles of fairness, informed consent, and access to justice in India’s digital education landscape. Applying a hybrid analytical approach, including doctrinal analysis, case law review, employing comparative international regulatory models (GDPR, COPPA, NDPR), and contractual audits, the paper critiques clause opacity. It also emphasises ineffective “clickwrap” consent models and questionable reliance on parental consent, the absence of a child- or youth-sensitive, robust regulatory framework within India’s digital contracting ecosystem. Section I introduces the hidden influence of dispute clauses within online educational agreements. Section II analyzes arbitration, forum selection, and escalation clauses in Indian EdTech contracts. Section III explores consent mechanisms concerning minors, young adults, and digitally uninformed parents, highlighting the undermining of meaningful user agency. Section IV draws a comparative perspective of legal frameworks to illustrate India's regulatory shortcomings through international benchmarks. Finally, Section V proposes reforms at both contractual and policy levels, advocating for enhanced transparency, simplified clause language, effective opt-out mechanisms, and strategic legislative intervention. Ultimately, the research does not oppose arbitration or dispute clauses in Edu-tech but critiques its problematic implementation in contexts where trust, legal capacity, and informed consent are crucial and must be earned, not assumed. It calls for drafting these clauses to serve as a bridge for the first-time users of digital education, making them more accessible and promoting fairness and user empowerment within the fine print.

Keywords