Design is promising in a world which prizes beauty and functionality. With this understanding, web giants have customised their experiences, competed to attract users, and influenced as substantially as possible, their behaviours across diverse fields. However, this model is not followed any longer perhaps in light of the growing concerns about the utilisation of personal data. Laws like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) also have offered instruments to make users the focus of the data economy. This article focuses on proposing operational recommendations to strengthen the choices to which users are entitled through design solutions.

This paper discusses the current CMA thinking in this important area for its ongoing programme of competition and consumer enforcement. It also explains why online choice architecture is relevant to both consumer protection policy and competition policy and outlines a novel taxonomy of practices.

The purpose of this open letter is to help businesses understand and comply with their existing obligations under consumer protection law when making urgency claims (for example, countdown timers, scarcity or ‘act fast’ messages) and/or price reduction claims online. The letter includes examples where common claims made by online businesses to consumers during the shopping process may breach the law, for example by misleading consumers or by putting unfair pressure on them.

Following the CMA's open letter to online businesses regarding urgency and price reduction claims, the Authority published this document featuring examples where common claims made by online businesses to consumers during the shopping process may breach the law, for example by misleading consumers or by putting unfair pressure on them.

Deceptive designs range from those that are ubiquitous and frustrating for consumers to those that are misleading and deceptive and can lead to significant consumer harm. In light of this, this report considers the common types of dark patterns, the impact of dark patterns on consumers, and the next steps businesses, governments, and consumers can take to reduce harm.

The central idea of this working paper is that issues of safety and fairness can no longer be regulated using consumer choice as the primary protection. Instead, consumers need a privacy law that stops harmful business practices before they cause significant harm. Two concepts are explored in this working paper to address both current and emerging data harms: duty of care or best-interests duty and the privacy safety regime. Borrowing concepts from product intervention powers and product safety interventions, the CPRC proposes options that would allow governments and regulators to stop or limit obviously harmful uses of data as well as a process for regulators to proactively restrict and test new harmful practices as they evolve. It concludes that the law needs to require more effort on the part of businesses to assess whether and how they collect, share, and use data that results in fair outcomes for their customers.