Dark Patterns.

The term was coined in 2010 by the British UX designer Harry Brignull, who collected and named typical patterns; he now prefers to speak of deceptive patterns. It does not mean accidental bad design, but design that deliberately works against users' interests. The difference from legitimate persuasion lies in whether the decision remains informed and free.

Well-known patterns include: the hidden cancellation, where a subscription is taken out with one click but can only be ended through many steps; pre-ticked extras in the cart; artificial scarcity such as 'Only 2 left' with no real link to stock; fake countdowns; confirmshaming, where declining is worded to shame ('No thanks, I prefer to pay more'); hidden costs that only appear at the last step; and cookie banners where 'Accept all' glows while 'Reject' is hidden behind a second layer.

Legally, the situation has tightened. In the EU, Article 25 of the Digital Services Act prohibits providers of online platforms from designing their interfaces in a way that deceives, manipulates or materially impairs users' ability to make free decisions. Consumer protection and data protection law also apply, for example when consent is forced through design. Switzerland has no specific dark-pattern law; the Unfair Competition Act (UWG), for instance in the case of misleading statements, and the Data Protection Act may be relevant. This is a general overview, not legal advice; in individual cases a specialist should assess it.

Regardless of the law, dark patterns are bad business for companies that live on trust. They may improve a number in the short term, such as the sign-up rate, but they produce chargebacks, complaints, poor reviews and customers who leave at the first opportunity. For an SME that lives on recommendations and repeat customers, a clear, honest interface is the more sustainable path to a good conversion rate. How we put that into practice is described on the page conversion rate optimisation.