[LINK] Lawmakers take aim at insidious digital “dark patterns”

[Kim Holburn]

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:kim at holburn.net   aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn  - PGP Public Key on request