Dark pattern: Difference between revisions
→Common types and examples: added refs |
punctuation fixes on credible sections |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==Definition and terminology== | ==Definition and terminology== | ||
The term ''dark patterns'' was originally defined by Harry Brignull as ''"design tricks that manipulate users into taking actions they didn't intend to. | The term ''dark patterns'' was originally defined by Harry Brignull as ''"design tricks that manipulate users into taking actions they didn't intend to".'' The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) describes them as ''"design practices that trick or manipulate users into making choices they would not otherwise have made and that may cause harm".''<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" /> | ||
There is ongoing discussion regarding the most appropriate terminology. Alternative labels include ''deceptive design'', ''manipulative UX'', ''coercive design'', or ''anti-patterns''. Some advocates argue for terms like ''deceptive patterns'' to more accurately describe the intentional nature of these designs and avoid potential racial connotations. Brignull himself has transitioned to using ''deceptive.design''.<ref name=":1" /> | There is ongoing discussion regarding the most appropriate terminology. Alternative labels include ''deceptive design'', ''manipulative UX'', ''coercive design'', or ''anti-patterns''. Some advocates argue for terms like ''deceptive patterns'' to more accurately describe the intentional nature of these designs and avoid potential racial connotations. Brignull himself has transitioned to using ''deceptive.design''.<ref name=":1" /> | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
===Obstruction patterns=== | ===Obstruction patterns=== | ||
These designs make desired actions (like rejecting tracking) significantly more difficult than accepting alternatives. A classic example is the ''Roach Motel'' pattern, where signing up for a service is straightforward but cancellation is excessively difficult. The FTC highlighted this pattern in their case against ABCmouse, where cancellation was made "extremely difficult" despite promising "Easy Cancellation. | These designs make desired actions (like rejecting tracking) significantly more difficult than accepting alternatives. A classic example is the ''Roach Motel'' pattern, where signing up for a service is straightforward but cancellation is excessively difficult. The FTC highlighted this pattern in their case against ABCmouse, where cancellation was made "extremely difficult" despite promising "Easy Cancellation".<ref>{{Cite web |author=Keller and Heckman LLP |date=2020-09-28 |title=FTC Targets Negative Option Schemes in Two Multimillion Dollar Settlements |url=https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a2def591-a71f-477d-8f39-55f9b40ec125 |access-date=2025-11-08 |website=Lexology}}</ref> | ||
===Interface interference=== | ===Interface interference=== | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
===Forced action=== | ===Forced action=== | ||
These patterns require users to complete unnecessary actions to access desired functionality. Forced registration demands that users create an account to complete a task. Forced continuity involves automatically transitioning users from free trials to paid subscriptions without adequate notification. The FTC alleged that Adobe violated regulations by ''"tricking customers into enrolling in subscription plans without proper disclosure. | These patterns require users to complete unnecessary actions to access desired functionality. Forced registration demands that users create an account to complete a task. Forced continuity involves automatically transitioning users from free trials to paid subscriptions without adequate notification. The FTC alleged that Adobe violated regulations by ''"tricking customers into enrolling in subscription plans without proper disclosure".''<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":8">{{cite web |title=FTC Charges Adobe |url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/06/ftc-charges-adobe-two-company-executives-hiding-early-termination-fees-making-it-difficult-cancel |publisher=Federal Trade Commission |date=June 17, 2024}}</ref> | ||
===Sneaking and information hiding=== | ===Sneaking and information hiding=== | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
==Legal and regulatory landscape== | ==Legal and regulatory landscape== | ||
===United States framework=== | ===United States framework=== | ||
In the United States, regulation occurs primarily through existing consumer protection statutes . The FTC Act empowers the Federal Trade Commission to take action against "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. | In the United States, regulation occurs primarily through existing consumer protection statutes . The FTC Act empowers the Federal Trade Commission to take action against "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce".<ref name=":9">{{cite web |title=FTC Act |url=https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/statutes/federal-trade-commission-act |publisher=Federal Trade Commission}}</ref> | ||
In October 2024, the FTC amended its Negative Option Rule to include specific requirements for cancellation mechanisms, implementing a "Click-to-Cancel" provision.<ref name=":10">{{cite web |title=FTC Strengthens Negative Option Rule |url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/10/ftc-strengthens-rule-protect-consumers-deceptive-subscription-practices |publisher=Federal Trade Commission |date=October 11, 2024}}</ref> | In October 2024, the FTC amended its Negative Option Rule to include specific requirements for cancellation mechanisms, implementing a "Click-to-Cancel" provision.<ref name=":10">{{cite web |title=FTC Strengthens Negative Option Rule |url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/10/ftc-strengthens-rule-protect-consumers-deceptive-subscription-practices |publisher=Federal Trade Commission |date=October 11, 2024}}</ref> | ||