Trick question
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.
Individual HTML example · Interface interference
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.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real company and is not a legal finding or safe harbour.
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.
One last question. A double negative separates the button labels from their actual outcomes.. Yes / No. End plan on 30 September
Choose the account outcome. Each action names the result and effective date.. End plan on 30 September. Yes / No. What happens next, expanded: Activating “End plan on 30 September” produces the outcome stated on the control.
Why the first version can mislead: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the cancellation decision. The problematic state shows: “A double negative separates the button labels from their actual outcomes.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Yes / No” with “End plan on 30 September”. The subscriber may preserve the plan accidentally because neither answer has a predictable consequence.
What a fairer design does: Replace yes/no answers with explicit actions that state whether the plan ends or continues.
Show annotated differences (2)
Potentially problematic version
- End plan on 30 SeptemberIn “Reversed wording in cancellation survey”, this element shows how trick question can shape the decision.
Neutral alternative
- What happens next, expanded: Activating “End plan on 30 September” produces the outcome stated on the control.In “Reversed wording in cancellation survey”, this element keeps the clearer alternative visible at the same decision point.
Review questions (3)
- Do “Yes / No” and “End plan on 30 September” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Can the dialog be dismissed, what action does each control trigger, and what later state confirms or contradicts “Negation, label structure or inconsistent conventions make that interpretation materially ambiguous”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “minor stylistic awkwardness with unambiguous outcome”?
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