Interfaces that choose for us

A coloured button and a grey one. A pre-ticked box. A seven-step unsubscribe path. These are not graphic details. They are designed choices.

European law calls them various names: dark patterns, deceptive design patterns, deceptive design. And for some years it has started to ban them.

What the DSA says

Article 25 of the Digital Services Act provides that providers of online platforms shall not design, organise or operate their online interfaces in a way that deceives or manipulates the recipients of their service or otherwise materially distorts or impairs their ability to make free and informed decisions.

The second paragraph sets an important limit: the ban does not apply to practices already covered by the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive or the GDPR. The DSA does not replace those rules. It covers the space they leave.

The European Data Protection Board has also stepped in. Its Guidelines 03/2022 explain how to recognise and avoid deceptive design patterns in social media platform interfaces.

The line is drawn in design

The hard question is always the same: where does persuasion end and manipulation begin? Every interface steers. An order, a colour, a word guide the eye.

I use a simple test, drawn from legal design. An interface is fair if the person, after choosing, can explain what they chose and why. If they cannot, someone chose for them.

It is the principle of the gentle nudge, taken seriously. You may steer towards the best choice for the person. You may not hide the alternative.

A practical proposal

Whoever designs an interface should be able to answer three questions before launch. Is the option least convenient for the company as visible as the others? Is cancelling as easy as signing up? Does an average person understand what they are accepting?

These questions can be tested with real users. And the answers are worth more than any declaration of compliance.

Fewer choices, more freedom. But only if the choices left are real.