Algorithmic Criminal Liability in Greenwashing: Comparing India, United States, and European Union

ALGORITHMIC CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN GREENWASHING: COMPARING INDIA, UNITED STATES, AND EUROPEAN UNION Sahibpreet Singh* & Dr. Manjit Singh** Abstract AI-powered greenwashing has emerged as an insidious challenge within corporate sustainability governance. It exacerbates the opacity of environmental disclosures. It subverts regulatory oversight. This study conducts a comparative legal analysis of criminal liability for AI-mediated greenwashing across India, the US, and the EU. It exposes doctrinal lacunae in attributing culpability when deceptive sustainability claims originate from algorithmic systems rather than human actors. Existing statutes exhibit anthropocentric biases by predicating liability on demonstrable human intent, rendering them ill-equipped to address algorithmic deception. The research identifies a critical gap in jurisprudential adaptation, as prevailing fraud and environmental statutes remain antiquated vis-à-vis AI-generated misrepresentation. Utilising a doctrinal legal methodology, this study systematically dissects judicial precedents, statutory instruments, and regulatory directives, yielding promising results regarding the potential expansion of corporate criminal liability doctrines. Preliminary findings underscore the viability of strict liability models, the recalibration of corporate governance frameworks to incorporate AI accountability, and the institutionalisation of algorithmic due diligence mandates under ESG compliance regimes. Comparative insights reveal jurisdictional disparities in corporate culpability paradigms, with the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) offering a potential transnational model for regulatory harmonisation. This study contributes to the discourse on AI ethics and environmental jurisprudence by advocating for a hybrid liability framework that integrates algorithmic risk assessment with legal personhood constructs. The implications necessitate a doctrinal evolution that fortifies juridical architectures against AI-driven environmental deception. The findings advocate for an interdisciplinary approach to AI regulation, ensuring algorithmic opacity does not preclude liability enforcement in sustainability-related misrepresentation. Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Corporate Criminal Liability, Algorithmic Misrepresentation, Environmental Fraud, Strict Liability in AI Governance

• LLM, Department of Laws, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. ** Assistant Professor, Department of Laws, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. 52 I
  Introduction Greenwashing denotes the systematic dissemination of spurious assertions or deceptive representations concerning the purported ecological integrity of corporate commodities or operational modalities.1 This duplicitous modus operandi is meticulously orchestrated to entice environmentally cognizant consumers. It concurrently functions as an apparatus for inveigling investors. The overarching objective remains the fortification of a hegemonic commercial ascendancy. The significance of greenwashing within environmental law is profound. 2 It vitiates meticulously architected regulatory scaffolds instituted to engender bona fide sustainability. It precipitates consumer disillusionment. It engenders inequitable market distortions; it culminates in ecological debasement. It perpetuates untenable industrial practices that masquerade under an eco-centric veneer. The nomenclature was initially enunciated by environmentalist Westerveld in 1986. 3 His critique castigated the hospitality sector’s mendacious sustainability expositions. Over time, greenwashing has evolved from mere marketing tactics to complex fraudulent schemes impacting regulatory compliance, consumer trust, and financial markets.4 Greenwashing engenders corporate accountability, consumer protection, and climatic amelioration. A plethora of legislative enactments is meticulously designed to proscribe the dissemination of spurious ecological assertions. Nevertheless, the efficacious enforcement of these regulations remains an onerous endeavour. The protean subterfuges employed by corporate entities incessantly obfuscate juridical intervention and regulatory oversight.5 The proliferating assimilation of artificial intelligence into corporate environmental governance has exacerbated the convolutions intrinsic to greenwashing. AI-driven mechanisms are now operationalising the automation of sustainability disclosures. They orchestrate the analytical dissection of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) metrics.6 They exert a formidable influence over consumer perception. However, these algorithmic faculties simultaneously capacitate AI to aggrandise or contrive eco-centric bona

1 Magali A. Delmas & Vanessa Cuerel Burbano, The Drivers of Greenwashing, 54 CAL. MGMT. REV. 64 (2011). 2 Amanda Shanor & Sarah E. Light, Greenwashing and the First Amendment, 122 COLU. L.