In this report, an analysis of a sample of settings in Facebook, Google, and Windows 10 was undertaken. It was shown how dark patterns, techniques and features of interface design meant to manipulate users are used to nudge users toward privacy intrusive options. Based on this, the findings reveal privacy intrusive default settings, misleading wording, giving users an illusion of control, hiding privacy-friendly options, take it-or-leave it choices, and choice architectures where choosing the privacy-friendly option requires more effort from users.

In the past years, regulators around the world found a new focal point in addressing online information asymmetries. This focal point is dark patterns. As this inspired a widespread interest that brings together human-computer interaction, web measurement, data protection, consumer protection, competition law, and behavioral economics – to name a few relevant disciplines – the authors decided to focus this consumer update on this topic. With the help of Cristiana Santos, who is an expert in the conceptualization and detection of dark patterns as privacy violations, they have written a short summary of the research in the field, regulatory concerns, as well as brief critical reflections showing where more attention should be paid.

In two preregistered online experiments the authors investigated the effects of three common design nudges (default, aesthetic manipulation, obstruction) on users’ consent decisions and their perception of control over their personal data in these situations. In the first experiment (N = 228) they explored the effects of design nudges towards the privacy-unfriendly option (dark patterns) and in the second, they reversed the direction of the design nudges towards the privacy-friendly option, titled “bright patterns”. Through this and overall, findings suggest that many current implementations of cookie consent requests do not enable meaningful choices by internet users, and are thus not in line with the intention of the EU policymakers. They also explore how policymakers could address the problem.

This article outlines and explores the limits of dark patterns- which it describes as the specific ethical phenomenon which supplants user value in favour of shareholder value. It also analyses the corpus of practitioner-defined dark patterns and determines the ethical concerns raised in these examples. Additionally, it identifies the examples which simply fall under a wide range of ethical issues raised by practitioners that were frequently conflated under the umbrella term of dark patterns. At the same time, the researchers acknowledge that UX designers may be complicit in these manipulative or unreasonably persuasive techniques and concludes then, with implications of educating user experience designers and a proposal for broadening research on the ethics of user experience.

Dark patterns are common in everyday digital experiences, and they present a new challenge to emerging global privacy laws, particularly the European Union (EU) data protection framework and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The author contends that while there is an apparent lack of legal tools to deal with dark patterns, the current framework can be amended to identify and curb them, especially through a refinement of the requisites for lawfulness of consent and the reformulation of the fairness principle in data protection.

The author in this paper takes an interesting stance relating to dark patterns and the subject of online privacy- that the current online consent mechanisms do not permit data subjects to think, decide, and choose according to their internal beliefs, therefore impairing essential individual freedoms or capabilities. Cognitive limitations, information overload, information sufficiency, lack of intervenability and lack of free choice are identified as major shortcomings of consent in privacy. Based on these findings, the author proposes a methodology to evaluate old or new design measures to improve consent and reinstall freedoms of thought, decision and choice.

In light of the regulation of manipulative interfaces by the United States, questions have been raised about the advisability of national or even European regulation of the exploitation of our cognitive biases by designers of digital interfaces. The article looks at the extent then to which the legislation regulates abusive practices, i.e. dark patterns which exploit cognitive biases. Finally, the author proposes that consideration could be given to a principle of the purpose of capturing attention (in particular the collection of attention for specific, explicit and legitimate purposes and the absence of further processing in a manner incompatible with the purposes initially intended).

This submission assesses the extent to which extant and forthcoming legislation is equipped to address the pernicious practice of dark patterns through the prism of the digital fairness review.

This article analyzes the definition of dark patterns introduced by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), the first legislation explicitly regulating dark patterns in the United States. The authors discuss the factors that make defining and regulating privacy-focused dark patterns challenging, review current regulatory approaches, consider the challenges of measuring and evaluating dark patterns, and provide recommendations for policymakers. They argue that California’s model offers the opportunity for the state to take a leadership role in regulating dark patterns generally and privacy dark patterns specifically, and that the CPRA’s definition of dark patterns, which relies on outcomes and avoids targeting issues of designer intent, presents a potential model for others to follow.

This article discusses the results of the authors’ two large-scale experiments in which representative samples of American consumers were exposed to dark patterns. The research also showed the susceptibility of certain groups- particularly those less educated, to dark patterns and identified the dark patterns that seem most likely to nudge consumers into making decisions that they are likely to regret or misunderstand. Hidden information, trick question, and obstruction strategies were shown to be particularly likely to manipulate.