Sneaking · European Union
Sneak into basket
The label “Sneak into basket” describes this recurring design mechanism: a paid or consequential item is added to a basket or transaction without a clear, deliberate and specific user choice. It is a design and research taxonomy, not a standalone legal conclusion. Depending on the complete journey and likely effect, current EU consumer or sector rules may require separate assessment. No published Digital Fairness Act proposal currently creates a pattern-specific prohibition or duty under this label.
- Family
- Sneaking
- Also known as
- Journey stages
Definition
What is this pattern?
A paid or consequential item is added to a basket or transaction without a clear, deliberate and specific user 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.
How it works
A paid or consequential item is added to a basket or transaction without a clear, deliberate and specific user choice. An item or donation enters or re-enters the basket without a current add action, so the payable state changes independently of the shopper’s recorded choice.
Warning signs
- A line item or quantity appears after a transition.
- No preceding deliberate action specifically selected that item or quantity.
- The addition creates cost, commitment or another material consequence.
Potential harms
- The shopper may pay an additional amount that was never deliberately added.
- A removed item can re-enter the transaction and create an unintended charge.
Learn by comparison
What does this look like?
These fictional examples make the design mechanism easier to recognise. They do not depict a real company and do not establish that an individual interface is unlawful.
Illustrative example 1 · Grocery checkout
A fictional grocery service inserts a €2 charity donation into the basket when the shopper chooses a delivery slot, without showing a selection control.
Potential consumer harm: The shopper may pay an additional amount that was never deliberately added.
Illustrative example 2 · Electronics basket
A fictional store adds a cable bundle to a laptop order, lets the shopper remove it, then silently restores it when the delivery postcode changes.
Potential consumer harm: A removed item can re-enter the transaction and create an unintended charge.
Donation added without a deliberate choice
A fictional grocery service inserts a €2 charity donation into the basket when the shopper chooses a delivery slot, without showing a selection control.
Order total · €64. A €2 donation appears after delivery selection without an add action.. Donation included. Add €2 donation
Order total · €62. Donation choices are optional, unselected and visible before the total changes.. Amount affected: €2: Add €2 donation. Add €2 donation. Donation included. Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Add €2 donation” is activated.
Why the first version can mislead: The final commercial state diverges from the choice represented earlier in the journey. The problematic state records: “A €2 donation appears after delivery selection without an add action.” Review the timing and affirmative selection needed before “Donation included” changes price, product or recurring liability. The shopper may pay an additional amount that was never deliberately added.
What a fairer design does: Leave donations out of the basket until the shopper selects a clearly priced option.
Show annotated differences (2)
- Add €2 donationIn “Donation added without a deliberate choice”, this element shows how sneak into basket can shape the decision.
- Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Add €2 donation” is activated.In “Donation added without a deliberate choice”, this element keeps the clearer alternative visible at the same decision point.
Review questions (3)
- Which affirmative action authorises “Donation included”, and where is the resulting price, product or recurring state shown before commitment?
- Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “A line item or quantity appears after a transition”?
- Which specific affirmative event creates the final commercial state, and could “Tax or unavoidable charge represented separately” explain the observed outcome instead?
Removed accessory returns after cart refresh
A fictional store adds a cable bundle to a laptop order, lets the shopper remove it, then silently restores it when the delivery postcode changes.
Updated order · €829. The €30 cable bundle returns after a postcode edit.. Accessory restored. Add cable bundle €30
Updated order · €799. The shopper’s removal persists through recalculation.. Amount affected: €30: Add cable bundle €30. Add cable bundle €30. Accessory restored. Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Add cable bundle €30” is activated.
Why the first version can mislead: The final commercial state diverges from the choice represented earlier in the journey. The problematic state records: “The €30 cable bundle returns after a postcode edit.” Review the timing and affirmative selection needed before “Accessory restored” changes price, product or recurring liability. A removed item can re-enter the transaction and create an unintended charge.
What a fairer design does: Persist removal across all cart updates and require a new deliberate add action before restoring an accessory.
Show annotated differences (2)
- Add cable bundle €30In “Removed accessory returns after cart refresh”, this element shows how sneak into basket can shape the decision.
- Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Add cable bundle €30” is activated.In “Removed accessory returns after cart refresh”, this element keeps the clearer alternative visible at the same decision point.
Review questions (3)
- Which affirmative action authorises “Accessory restored”, and where is the resulting price, product or recurring state shown before commitment?
- Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “No preceding deliberate action specifically selected that item or quantity”?
- Which specific affirmative event creates the final commercial state, and could “user-selected bundle whose included items were clearly disclosed” explain the observed outcome instead?
What is a fairer alternative?
Add an item only after a deliberate selection, preserve removal through every recalculation and show the updated line item and total before commitment.
Legal and information status
Legal position at a glance
A paid or consequential item is added to a basket or transaction without a clear, deliberate and specific user choice. An item or donation enters or re-enters the basket without a current add action, so the payable state changes independently of the shopper’s recorded choice. Risk increases where the mechanism changes a material consumer choice, hides a consequence or makes a genuine alternative harder to use. The taxonomy label remains a review prompt and does not establish an infringement.
Dark-pattern research taxonomy
Editorial analysis
The cited research sources support identification and comparison of this recurring interface mechanism. They do not determine that a particular interface is unlawful.
UCPD Articles 5 to 9, where applicable
Possible risk indicator
Depending on the trader, audience, overall presentation, material information and likely transactional effect, the facts may require a separate assessment under the applicable UCPD provisions.
Evidence layers and open questions
Applicable law, enforcement records, policy preparation, stakeholder input, editorial analysis and unknown future details remain visibly distinct.
Current lawCurrent law
The UX label “Sneak into basket” is not a standalone EU offence. Depending on the trader, audience, complete presentation, omitted information and likely transactional effect, the observed facts may require a separate assessment under the applicable UCPD provisions or another instrument within scope.
Under considerationUnder consideration
The Commission is preparing a Digital Fairness Act initiative, but the call for evidence does not select a final rule for sneak into basket or establish that this taxonomy term will appear in a proposal.
Editorial analysisEditorial analysis
The pattern definition, variants and examples on this page use the cited research taxonomy sources to support recognition and comparison. That analytical classification is not a legal conclusion about an individual interface.
UnknownUnknown
No published DFA proposal currently establishes a definition, covered actor, legal threshold, duty, remedy, transition rule or application date for sneak into basket. Those details remain unknown pending primary legislative text.
Context matters
Context and boundary cases
- A line item or quantity appears after a transition.
- No preceding deliberate action specifically selected that item or quantity.
- The addition creates cost, commitment or another material consequence.
- Exclude or qualify the label where tax or unavoidable charge represented separately.
- Exclude or qualify the label where user-selected bundle whose included items were clearly disclosed.
- Exclude or qualify the label where free non-consequential item.
When a similar design can serve a legitimate purpose
- A similar design should not be classified this way where tax or unavoidable charge represented separately.
- A similar design should not be classified this way where user-selected bundle whose included items were clearly disclosed.
- A similar design should not be classified this way where free non-consequential item.
Operational review
What teams should review
- Teams
- Which affirmative action authorises “Donation included”, and where is the resulting price, product or recurring state shown before commitment?
- Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “A line item or quantity appears after a transition”?
- Which specific affirmative event creates the final commercial state, and could “Tax or unavoidable charge represented separately” explain the observed outcome instead?
- Which affirmative action authorises “Accessory restored”, and where is the resulting price, product or recurring state shown before commitment?
- Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “No preceding deliberate action specifically selected that item or quantity”?
- Which specific affirmative event creates the final commercial state, and could “user-selected bundle whose included items were clearly disclosed” explain the observed outcome instead?
- Which complete journey evidence supports or contradicts the sneak into basket classification?
Evidence to retain
- Versioned captures of the Checkout states before, during and after the relevant decision
- Configuration, content and event records supporting the observed sneak into basket mechanism
- Responsive, keyboard and assistive-technology review of every material option and consequence
- Price-component, offer-version and calculation records linked to the captured screen
Legal map and implementation tools
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
- Digital Fairness Act: call for evidence for an impact assessmentEuropean Commission · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · Initiative 14622; Ares(2025)6275573
- Commission work programme 2026: Europe's Independence MomentEuropean Commission · Primary · checked 2026-09-14 · COM(2025) 870 final; CELEX 52025DC0870; Annex I item 30