Author: University of South Australia
The Data Standards Body engaged the University of South Australia to analyse and report on deceptive patterns.
The report’s purpose was to better understand deceptive patterns in use and how the consumer data right (CDR) may be vulnerable to them.
Background
Informed consent
Informed consent is the key asset of the CDR.
The Data Standards Chair protects this asset through the data standards.
If consent is not informed, or not given when a consumer desires to give it, this compromises the CDR. Likewise, consent needs to be managed so that it is current.
Consumers need to be able to withdraw consent and have notifications issued promptly so this withdrawal is acted upon.
Deceptive patterns
Deceptive patterns or dark patterns[1], are practices that nudge consumers into doing something they originally did not wish to do. Such as giving (or not giving) access to their data or paying for goods or services they did not intend to buy.
They undermine informed consent.
Deceptive patterns can also undermine the ability of consumers to withdraw consent.
1 Both terms are in common use. Some prefer Dark Patterns because while these patterns benefit the vendor, deception of the consumer is not always involved. The term Dark Patterns is thus more comprehensive. Others prefer Deceptive Patterns as the term is more descriptive in most circumstances and does not link ‘dark’ with bad.