Pattern family
Forced action
Conditions access to a desired function on an additional action, disclosure or commitment that is not inherently required for the user's goal.
Explore forced action →Curated UX and legal taxonomy
Dark patterns, mapped with legal caution.
“Dark pattern” is a useful design and research taxonomy, not a finding that every occurrence is unlawful. This versioned library maps 39 recurring patterns across seven OECD-aligned families to journey stages, visual examples, fairer alternatives and cautious EU legal context. It is a substantial working catalogue, not a claim that design taxonomies can ever form a final universal list.
Source comparison .
Choose a learning path
Browse by mechanism, journey or example.
Families explain how a design mechanism works. Journey guides start from the decision a person is trying to complete. The example gallery places problematic and neutral interface states side by side, while the glossary resolves common aliases without creating duplicate definitions.
Pattern family
Interface interference
Privileges business-favoured actions through visual, linguistic or structural presentation of choices and information.
Explore interface interference →Pattern family
Nagging
Repeatedly interrupts or asks the user to take a business-favoured action after the user has declined, deferred or ignored it.
Explore nagging →Pattern family
Obstruction
Adds unnecessary friction, barriers or dead ends to dissuade the user from a choice, right or task.
Explore obstruction →Pattern family
Sneaking
Hides, disguises or delays material consequences so that the user takes an action they may otherwise reject.
Explore sneaking →Pattern family
Social proof
Uses claimed behaviour, approval or popularity among other people to accelerate or steer a decision.
Explore social proof →Pattern family
Urgency
Applies temporal or quantitative pressure through real, exaggerated or fabricated scarcity claims.
Explore urgency →Account deletion obstruction
Deleting an account is unavailable, disguised as another outcome or burdened by unnecessary barriers. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation…
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Account deletion obstructionActivity messages
Claims about recent or current actions by other users are used to steer the decision, particularly where authenticity, timing or relevance is unsupported.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Activity messagesAutomatic attention capture
Content continues automatically or lacks meaningful stopping cues, reducing deliberate control over time and attention.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Automatic attention captureBait and switch
The user selects a represented action or offer but receives a materially different outcome that favours the business.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Bait and switchBundled options
Distinct products, services, permissions or purposes are grouped under one choice so the user cannot readily understand or select them separately.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Bundled optionsCancellation friction
Ending an existing subscription, recurring service or permission is made difficult to find or complete through unnecessary steps or channel asymmetry.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Cancellation frictionChoice or information overload
The volume or organisation of options or information makes meaningful comparison impractical and channels users toward a default or business-favoured path.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Choice or information overloadComparison prevention
Information needed to compare products, plans or consequences is presented in inconsistent, fragmented or unusable form.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Comparison preventionComplex or inaccessible language
Material guidance is presented in a language or level of complexity that makes informed choice materially harder for the target user.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Complex or inaccessible languageConfirmshaming
Option labels use shame, guilt, fear or asymmetric emotional framing to move the user away from the outcome they would otherwise choose.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: ConfirmshamingContact harvesting and coerced referrals
The service extracts contact information, sends or prepares unwanted invitations, or ties functionality to recruiting other people.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Contact harvesting and coerced referralsCountdown timer
A visible countdown applies time pressure, particularly where it resets, is personalised without disclosure or has no corresponding consequence at zero.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Countdown timerCustomer-support obstruction
Access to support needed to resolve a purchase, account, charge or right is hidden or burdened by unnecessary loops and dead ends.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Customer-support obstructionDead end
A consumer-favourable route cannot reach its represented outcome and instead loops, stalls or loses progress. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular…
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Dead endDisguised advertisement or action
A promotional or biased action is presented as ordinary content or as a different control, causing interaction under a mistaken understanding.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Disguised advertisement or actionDrip pricing and hidden charges
A mandatory or foreseeable charge is omitted, obscured or revealed only after the user has invested effort in the transaction.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Drip pricing and hidden chargesFalse hierarchy
Parallel options are presented as if one were hierarchically primary, giving a business-favoured option materially greater visual or interactive prominence.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: False hierarchyFeedforward ambiguity
A control does not let the user reasonably predict its material outcome before activation. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful…
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Feedforward ambiguityForced disclosure or excessive data request
Access or progression is conditioned on disclosing personal information that appears unnecessary, excessive or used for an insufficiently explained secondary purpose.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Forced disclosure or excessive data requestForced or bundled consent
Access is conditioned on accepting optional or separable data uses, communications or permissions as one bundled choice.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Forced or bundled consentForced registration
The user must create an account, or is led to believe one is required, to complete a goal that could plausibly be provided without it.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Forced registrationGamified or paid access coercion
Desired functionality is practically conditioned on repetitive engagement or an additional payment not sufficiently clear at acquisition.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Gamified or paid access coercionHidden information
Information relevant to the decision is absent or presented so ineffectively that it is unlikely to inform the user at the decision point.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Hidden informationHidden subscription or forced continuity
A transaction creates or continues recurring liability without effective, timely disclosure of the subscription, renewal and exit consequences.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Hidden subscription or forced continuityHigh-demand claim
A claim of unusually high current demand is used to accelerate a decision without a clear or supportable basis.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: High-demand claimIntermediate currency
A proprietary currency makes the real monetary cost or remaining value unnecessarily hard to understand. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular…
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Intermediate currencyLimited-time or reservation claim
A textual deadline or temporary-reservation claim pressures action, particularly where the deadline renews or its stated consequence does not occur.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Limited-time or reservation claimLow-stock claim
A claim that few units remain applies purchase pressure, especially where inventory basis or persistence is unsupported.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Low-stock claimMisleading reference pricing
A comparison or prior price creates an inaccurate or insufficiently explained impression of savings. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation…
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Misleading reference pricingNegative option or unauthorised transaction
Silence, inactivity or an ineffective prior interaction is treated as authorisation for a paid or consequential transaction.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Negative option or unauthorised transactionObstructed alternative
A relevant alternative within the current decision is hidden, blocked or made materially harder than the business-favoured action.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Obstructed alternativePopularity claims
Aggregate popularity or approval is presented to steer a choice where the metric, population, period or basis is unclear or unsupported.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Popularity claimsPreselection and defaults
A business-favoured option with a plausible adverse consequence is active before a deliberate user choice. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular…
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Preselection and defaultsPressured upselling
A more expensive or profitable option is made the practical focal choice through preselection, visual prominence or obscured lower-cost alternatives.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Pressured upsellingPrivacy maze
Privacy controls are fragmented, inconsistently labelled or layered so that limiting collection or use is unnecessarily difficult.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Privacy mazeRepeated prompting
A business-favoured request repeatedly interrupts the user after decline, dismissal or non-response without a durable way to stop it.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Repeated promptingSneak into basket
A paid or consequential item is added to a basket or transaction without a clear, deliberate and specific user choice.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Sneak into basketTestimonials or endorsements
A named or attributed person's approval is used persuasively without sufficient authenticity, representativeness or relationship disclosure.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Testimonials or endorsementsTrick question
A question or control uses confusing, reversed or leading semantics so the user's likely interpretation may not match the resulting choice.
Taxonomy label. Legal assessment depends on the complete context and applicable law.
2 visual examples
See examples and legal context: Trick questionEvidence base
Sources
- Dark commercial patternsOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 336
- Unfair Commercial Practices DirectiveEuropean Parliament and Council of the European Union · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · Directive 2005/29/EC; CELEX 02005L0029-20220528
- An Ontology of Dark Patterns KnowledgeGray et al.; ACM CHI 2024 · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · DOI 10.1145/3613904.3642436; arXiv:2309.09640
- Behavioural study on unfair commercial practices in the digital environmentEuropean Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · DOI 10.2838/859030; ISBN 978-92-76-52316-1
- Digital Services ActEuropean Parliament and Council of the European Union · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · Regulation (EU) 2022/2065; CELEX 32022R2065
- Consumer Rights DirectiveEuropean Parliament and Council of the European Union · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · Directive 2011/83/EU; CELEX 02011L0083-20220528
- Digital Fairness Act: call for evidence for an impact assessmentEuropean Commission · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · Initiative 14622; Ares(2025)6275573
- General Data Protection RegulationEuropean Parliament and Council of the European Union · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · Regulation (EU) 2016/679; CELEX 32016R0679
- Dark Patterns at Scale: Findings from a Crawl of 11K Shopping WebsitesMathur et al.; arXiv · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · arXiv:1907.07032