skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Title: Mobilizing Research and Regulatory Action on Dark Patterns and Deceptive Design Practices
Deceptive, manipulative, and coercive practices are deeply embedded in our digital experiences, impacting our ability to make informed choices and undermining our agency and autonomy. These design practices—collectively known as “dark patterns” or “deceptive patterns”—are increasingly under legal scrutiny and sanctions, largely due to the efforts of human-computer interaction scholars that have conducted pioneering research relating to dark patterns types, definitions, and harms. In this workshop, we continue building this scholarly community with a focus on organizing for action. Our aims include: (i) building capacity around specific research questions relating to methodologies for detection; (ii) characterization of harms; and (iii) creating effective countermeasures. Through the outcomes of the workshop, we will connect our scholarship to the legal, design, and regulatory communities to inform further legislative and legal action.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1909714
PAR ID:
10506966
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Publisher / Repository:
ACM
Date Published:
Journal Name:
CHI EA '24: Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
ISBN:
9798400703317
Page Range / eLocation ID:
1 to 6
Format(s):
Medium: X
Location:
Honolulu HI USA
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Growth hacking, particularly within the spectre of surveillance capitalism, has led to the widespread use of deceptive, manipulative, and coercive design techniques in the last decade. These challenges exist at the intersection of many diferent technology professions that are rapidly evolving and “shapeshifting” their design practices to confront emerging regulation. A wide range of scholars have increasingly addressed these challenges through the label “dark patterns,” describing the content of deceptive and coercive design practices, the ubiquity of these patterns in contemporary digital systems, and the impact of emerging regulatory and legislative action on the presence of dark patterns. Building on this convergent and trans-disciplinary research area, the aims of this SIG are to: 1) Provide an opportunity for researchers and practitioners to address methodologies for detecting, characterizing, and regulating dark patterns; 2) Identify opportunities for additional empirical work to characterize and demonstrate harms related to dark patterns; and 3) Aid in convergence among HCI, design, computational, regulatory, and legal perspectives on dark patterns. These goals will enable an internationally-diverse, engaged, and impactful research community to address the threats of dark patterns on digital systems. 
    more » « less
  2. Deceptive design practices are increasingly used by companies to extract profit, harvest data, and limit consumer choice. Dark patterns represent the most common contemporary amalgamation of these problematic practices, connecting designers, technologists, scholars, regulators, and legal professionals in transdisciplinary dialogue. However, a lack of universally accepted definitions across the academic, legislative and regulatory space has likely limited the impact that scholarship on dark patterns might have in supporting sanctions and evolved design practices. In this late breaking work, we seek to harmonize regulatory and academic taxonomies of dark patterns, proposing a preliminary three-level ontology to create a shared language that supports translational research and regulatory action. We identify potential directions for scholarship and social impact building upon this ontology. 
    more » « less
  3. Deceptive and coercive design practices are increasingly used by companies to extract profit, harvest data, and limit consumer choice. Dark patterns represent the most common contemporary amalgamation of these problematic practices, connecting designers, technologists, scholars, regulators, and legal professionals in transdisciplinary dialogue. However, a lack of universally accepted definitions across the academic, legislative, practitioner, and regulatory space has likely limited the impact that scholarship on dark patterns might have in supporting sanctions and evolved design practices. In this paper, we seek to support the development of a shared language of dark patterns, harmonizing ten existing regulatory and academic taxonomies of dark patterns and proposing a three-level ontology with standardized definitions for 64 synthesized dark pattern types across low-, meso-, and high-level patterns. We illustrate how this ontology can support translational research and regulatory action, including transdisciplinary pathways to extend our initial types through new empirical work across application and technology domains. 
    more » « less
  4. Lawmakers have started to regulate “dark patterns,” understood to be design practices meant to influence technology users’ decisions through manipulative or deceptive means. Most agree that dark patterns are undesirable, but open questions remain as to which design choices should be subjected to scrutiny, much less the best way to regulate them. In this Article, we propose adapting the concept of dark patterns to better fit legal frameworks. Critics allege that the legal conceptualizations of dark patterns are overbroad, impractical, and counterproductive. We argue that law and policy conceptualizations of dark patterns suffer from three deficiencies: First, dark patterns lack a clear value anchor for cases to build upon. Second, legal definitions of dark patterns overfocus on individuals and atomistic choices, ignoring de minimis aggregate harms and the societal implications of manipulation at scale. Finally, the law has struggled to articulate workable legal thresholds for wrongful dark patterns. To better regulate the designs called dark patterns, lawmakers need a better conceptual framing that bridges the gap between design theory and the law’s need for clarity, flexibility, and compatibility with existing frameworks. We argue that wrongful self-dealing is at the heart of what most consider to be “dark” about certain design patterns. Taking advantage of design affordances to the detriment of a vulnerable party is disloyal. To that end, we propose disloyal design as a regulatory framing for dark patterns. In drawing from established frameworks that prohibit wrongful self-dealing, we hope to provide more clarity and consistency for regulators, industry, and users. Disloyal design will fit better into legal frameworks and better rally public support for ensuring that the most popular tools in society are built to prioritize human values. 
    more » « less
  5. Deceptive design patterns (sometimes called “dark patterns”) are user interface design elements that may trick, deceive, or mislead users into behaviors that often benefit the party implementing the design over the end user. Prior work has taxonomized, investigated, and measured the prevalence of such patterns primarily in visual user interfaces (e.g., on websites). However, as the ubiquity of voice assistants and other voice-assisted technologies increases, we must anticipate how deceptive designs will be (and indeed, are already) deployed in voice interactions. This paper makes two contributions towards characterizing and surfacing deceptive design patterns in voice interfaces. First, we make a conceptual contribution, identifying key characteristics of voice interfaces that may enable deceptive design patterns, and surfacing existing and theoretical examples of such patterns. Second, we present the findings from a scenario-based user survey with 93 participants, in which we investigate participants’ perceptions of voice interfaces that we consider to be both deceptive and non-deceptive. 
    more » « less