Abstract

This master thesis explores the concerning persistence of dark patterns despite current regulations. Dark patterns represent a significant threat to users' rights, undermining trust and setting a precedent for digital design that favors manipulation over ethical engagement.

Identified and categorized in 2010 (Brignull, 2010), dark patterns have since gained substantial attention, with the European Despite these efforts, however, according to the European Commission (2022), an alarming 97% of the most popular online platforms and 40% of all e-commerce sites continue to employ dark patterns, raising critical questions about the role and responsibility of digital design. These manipulative practices challenge the standards of transparency and user-centered design that are foundational to a trustworthy digital ecosystem, revealing systemic vulnerabilities that allow such tactics to persist unchecked.

This thesis seeks to understand the factors that enable deceptive patterns to thrive, moving beyond a simple “good versus bad” designer paradigm to investigate the broader context in which dark patterns emerge. Through

a comprehensive mixed-methods approach—including in-depth interviews, surveys, workshops, and participatory design sessions—this study explores the motivations of the actors involved in the creation of dark patterns, the challenges faced by those seeking to stop them, and the structural conditions that allow such practices to go unregulated. The findings reveal complex motivations among stakeholders, ranging from financial incentives to regulatory ambiguity, and underscore the need for a coordinated and integrated response.

A collection of the studied dark patterns

This phenomenon has been identified since 2010, and since then they have been studied and classified since then, with the most comprehensive classification by Mathur et al. from 2019. Below there's a collection of the most commonly known dark patterns.

Research questions

Dark patterns timeline

Research: The actors

Although it is tempting to think in terms of „bad actors“, and use this as a guideline to attribute the blame to someone, this view might be overly simplistic. Instead, the system that enables dark patterns to persist is complex and interconnected.

The following are the actors that have been identified in this study as playing a role in this problem.

Design Contribution

Based on what has been learned about the context of this problem and how interactions between different actors contribute to the ongoing creation of dark patterns, along with the learnings from the past failed attempts to solve it, there is an opportunity for designers to play a more active role in addressing it. My design contribution is therefore divided into three main areas:

1. Toolkit: An AI and community-powered system to detect, categorize, and provide context for dark patterns

2, New Evaluation Criteria: A scoring system for dark patterns that considers current regulations, perceived harm, and intentionality. Based on previous studies of dark patterns and legal categorization.

3. A speculative consumer tool, to help users navigate complex digital interfaces.

The concept of techno-solutionism by Evgeny Morozov (Morozov, 2014), critiques the notion that technology alone can solve complex social, cultural, and political problems. This mindset presumes that technical solutions can fix what are ultimately deep-rooted issues—often overlooking the wider context in which these problems persist. danah boyd’s insights on the risks versus harms of youth social media usage highlight how tools and technology, no matter how sophisticated, can’t fully address the broader, systemic issues that underpin social harms (boyd, 2024).

Techno-solutionism often ignores or minimizes the underlying motivations that drive problems like dark patterns in the first place. Dark patterns are not accidental design flaws; they are intentional manipulations created to drive user behavior toward desired outcomes, often to maximize revenue. The existence of dark patterns reflects the larger values of an industry that prioritizes profits over user autonomy or wellbeing. Consequently, deploying a tool to identify and report these patterns without addressing the motivations behind their creation—such as unchecked corporate incentives and a culture of minimal regulation— would likely only produce limited or superficial changes.

Conclusion

For the tool to work effectively, it will require a supportive ecosystem. This includes regulatory bodies that are empowered and motivated to act on the reports generated, a marketplace that penalizes unethical behavior, and a public that is aware of the existence and impact of dark patterns and motivated to contribute to a change. Systemic support also means that companies need incentives to create ethical design structures that prioritize user welfare.Without this ecosystem, a detection tool is reduced to merely documenting harm without the power to prevent it.

The techno-legal solutionism trap emerges when we place too much faith in technology to solve problems that actually require legal reform, economic restructuring, and cultural shifts. In the case of dark patterns, we’re dealing with an industry driven by the lure of consumer data and the financial benefits of maximizing engagement and conversion rates. Addressing this environment effectively requires more than just technical fixes; it requires reshaping the legal and economic frameworks that currently reward dark patterns.

Dark patterns do not exist as a technology problem; instead, they are a reflection of the context in which they thrive. They are symptomatic of a complex capitalist system that prioritizes profits over consumer well-being—a dynamic we also observe in industries like food production, automobile manufacturing, and other consumer goods.

It is not enough to say, “regulation will come,” and hope for the best. Consumers have the right and responsibility to mobilize, demand better, safer products, and develop the skills to navigate these systems cautiously. Designers, have the responsability to reflect critically on their work, educate themselves in digital ethics and the principles of persuasion, and commit to becoming stronger advocates for users. Moving beyond the superficial aesthetics of interfaces (UI), designers must aim to create products that truly enhance the human experience.

This research has deepened my understanding of the interconnectedness between design, business, regulation, and society. It made me sad at times, frustrated, but ultimately hopeful. The challenges are vast, and the opportunity for meaningful change will only be possible with collective action and a commitment to ethics at every level of the digital ecosystem.

Read it here