https://www.wired.com/story/lawmakers-take-aim-insidious-digital-dark-patterns/
A new California law prohibits efforts to trick consumers into handing over data or money. A bill in Washington state copies the
language.
In 2010, British designer Harry Brignull coined a handy new term for an everyday annoyance: dark patterns
<https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-spot-avoid-dark-patterns/>, meaning digital interfaces that subtly manipulate people. It
became a term of art used by privacy campaigners and researchers. Now, more than a decade later, the coinage is gaining new,
legal, heft.
Dark patterns come in many forms and can trick a person out of time or money, or into forfeiting personal data. A common example
is the digital obstacle course that springs up when you try to nix an online account or subscription, such as for streaming TV,
asking you repeatedly if you really want to cancel. A 2019 Princeton survey of dark patterns
<https://webtransparency.cs.princeton.edu/dark-patterns/> in ecommerce listed 15 types of dark patterns, including hurdles to
canceling subscriptions and countdown timers to rush consumers into hasty decisions.
A new California law approved by voters in November <https://www.wired.com/story/one-clear-message-voters-election-more-privacy/>
will outlaw some dark patterns that steer people into giving companies more data than they intended. The California Privacy Rights
Act <https://www.wired.com/story/california-prop-24-fight-over-privacy-future/> is intended to strengthen the state’s landmark
privacy law <https://www.wired.com/story/ccpa-guide-california-privacy-law-takes-effect/>. The section of the new law defining
user consent says that “agreement obtained through use of dark patterns does not constitute consent.”
That’s the first time the term /dark patterns/ has appeared in US law, but likely not the last, says Jennifer King, a privacy
specialist at the Stanford Institute for
Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. “It’s probably going to proliferate,”
she says.
State senators in Washington this month introduced <https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5062&Year=2021> their own state
privacy bill—a third attempt at passing a law that, like California’s, is motivated in part by the lack of broad federal privacy
rules. This year’s bill copies verbatim California’s prohibition on using dark patterns to obtain consent. A competing bill
<https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1433&Year=2021&Initiative=false> unveiled Thursday and backed by the ACLU of
Washington does not include the term.
King says other states, and perhaps federal lawmakers emboldened by Democrats gaining control of the US Senate, may follow suit. A
bipartisan duo of senators took aim at dark patterns with 2019’s failed Deceptive Experiences to Online Users Reduction Act
<https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/4/senators-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-to-ban-manipulative-dark-patterns>,
although the law’s text didn’t use the term.
--
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
+61 404072753
mailto:[email protected] aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request
_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
