LC-14 · Consumer
Dark patterns that stop short of fraud
The button that is hard to find
In ordinary words
Companies design confirm-shaming, hidden cancel paths, and pre-checked add-ons. Some of those designs are now illegal. Many remain lawful if they do not cross into deception.
Why people call it a crime
A subscription that takes four screens to cancel and one click to start feels like a trap. People call it theft of attention and money. The law asks whether a reasonable consumer was actually misled.
A scene, not a hypothetical statute
The free trial ends. The cancel link is in a footer, gray on gray, and the confirm button says “No, I like wasting money.” Obnoxious. Not automatically illegal.
In legal terms
The FTC has sued dark patterns as deceptive practices, and ROSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 8403, requires simple mechanisms to stop recurring charges for many online negative-option plans. California’s automatic-renewal statute and the FTC’s Click-to-Cancel rule (adopted in 2024, with ongoing litigation over its scope) push the line. A confusing but truthful flow can still be lawful.
Persuasion is not fraud. The statute polices misrepresentation and certain negative-option mechanics, not every annoying interface.
15 U.S.C. § 45; 15 U.S.C. § 8401 et seq. (ROSCA); state automatic-renewal laws.
Where it stops being legal
Fake scarcity, buried fees that contradict the headline price, and cancellation paths that do not match the sign-up path under ROSCA or a state auto-renewal law are where enforcement starts.