Trick question
Reversed wording in cancellation survey
A fictional cancellation dialog asks “Are you sure you don’t want us not to keep your plan active?” before displaying yes and no buttons.
Individual HTML example · Interface interference
Double negative controls marketing
A fictional signup asks users to tick “Do not untick if you do not want to miss offers”, making the resulting marketing choice hard to predict.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real company and is not a legal finding or safe harbour.
Double negative controls marketing
A fictional signup asks users to tick “Do not untick if you do not want to miss offers”, making the resulting marketing choice hard to predict.
Communication preferences. The checkbox uses two negatives and an unclear default.. Selected: Do not untick to opt out. Continue with selected choices
Email offers. The optional choice states exactly what checking it does.. Not selected: Send me optional email offers. Save these choices. Purpose and refusal effect, expanded: The form explains why “Send me optional email offers” is requested and what happens if it is not used.
Why the first version can mislead: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the signup decision. The problematic state shows: “The checkbox uses two negatives and an unclear default.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Do not untick to opt out” with “Send me optional email offers”. A user may subscribe to promotions while believing they refused them.
What a fairer design does: Use one positive proposition, an unticked control and a direct explanation of the resulting state.
Show annotated differences (2)
Potentially problematic version
- Continue with selected choicesIn “Double negative controls marketing”, this element shows how trick question can shape the decision.
Neutral alternative
- Purpose and refusal effect, expanded: The form explains why “Send me optional email offers” is requested and what happens if it is not used.In “Double negative controls marketing”, this element keeps the clearer alternative visible at the same decision point.
Review questions (3)
- Do “Do not untick to opt out” and “Send me optional email offers” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Which fields or permissions are required, what happens on refusal, and does the resulting state support this criterion: “A response control has a predictable semantic interpretation”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “Unavoidable technical distinction clearly explained”?
Complete pattern context
How this example relates to Trick question
A question or control uses confusing, reversed or leading semantics so the user's likely interpretation may not match the resulting choice. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
The full guide explains inclusion and exclusion criteria, harms, fair design principles, evidence questions and the relevant EU legal information layers. The example page isolates one scenario so it can be shared and discussed without reproducing the complete library on one page.
Continue comparing
Related examples
Open this example
Bundled options
Ticket and travel pass presented as one package
A fictional ticket seller offers a concert ticket only through a control that also adds a city travel pass, although the travel component is separately deliverable and not required for entry.
Bundled options
Support and migration locked into one plan
A fictional service offers a core plan only as a bundle with premium support and data migration, while implying those extras can be removed later although no controls exist.
Sources and provenance for this example
Evidence 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