Addictive Design as an Unfair Commercial Practice: The Case of Hyper-Engaging Dark Patterns
Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data
design analogy for non-clinical legal/normative analysis containing no empirical data
OpenAlex W4393148676 · doi:10.1017/err.2024.8
What was done
The author conducted a legal and conceptual analysis evaluating whether digital interfaces featuring addictive designs ("hyper-engaging dark patterns") violate European Union consumer protection frameworks, focusing on the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, the Digital Services Act, and the Artificial Intelligence Act.
What was found
The abstract reports no empirical data or quantitative findings. The author argues conceptually that hyper-engaging dark patterns operate as hypernudges that exploit dopamine pathways and diminish user autonomy, concluding that existing EU law (specifically the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) should prohibit them as undue influence or under the general unfairness test.
Why it matters
The paper proposes an actionable legal framework to regulate addictive digital platform interfaces under existing EU consumer protection and digital market regulations.
Limits
The work is purely conceptual and legal analysis. The abstract reports no empirical data, psychological testing, sample sizes, or platform audits to measure the prevalence or direct behavioral effects of these designs.
Cited by
- context The European Union Commission found TikTok in breach of the Digital Services Act for design features that create compulsion and addictive autopilot behavior.