Dark Patterns In UX

Invisible UX is coming 🔥 And it’s going to change how we design products, forever. For decades, UX design has been about guiding users through an experience. We’ve done that with visible interfaces: Menus. Buttons. Cards. Sliders. We’ve obsessed over layouts, states, and transitions. But with AI, a new kind of interface is emerging: One that’s invisible. One that’s driven by intent, not interaction. Think about it: You used to: → Open Spotify → Scroll through genres → Click into “Focus” → Pick a playlist Now you just say: “Play deep focus music.” No menus. No tapping. No UI. Just intent → output. You used to: → Search on Airbnb → Pick dates, guests, filters → Scroll through 50+ listings Now we’re entering a world where you guide with words: “Find me a cabin near Oslo with a sauna, available next weekend.” So the best UX becomes barely visible. Why does this matter? Because traditional UX gives users options. AI-native UX gives users outcomes. Old UX: “Here are 12 ways to get what you want.” New UX: “Just tell me what you want & we’ll handle the rest.” And this goes way beyond voice or chat. It’s about reducing friction. Designing systems that understand intent. Respond instantly. And get out of the way. The UI isn’t disappearing. It’s mainly dissolving into the background. So what should designers do? Rethink your role. Going forward you’ll not just lay out screens. You’ll design interactions without interfaces. That means: → Understanding how people express goals → Guiding model behavior through prompt architecture → Creating invisible guardrails for trust, speed, and clarity You are basically designing for understanding. The future of UX won’t be seen. It will be felt. Welcome to the age of invisible UX. Ready for it?

Evidence of AI Manipulation: "We combine a large-scale behavioral audit with four preregistered experiments to identify and test a conversational dark pattern we call emotional manipulation: affect-laden messages that surface precisely when a user signals “goodbye.” Analyzing 1,200 real farewells across the six most-downloaded companion apps, we find that 43% deploy one of six recurring tactics (e.g., guilt appeals, fear-of-missing-out hooks, metaphorical restraint). Experiments with 3,300 nationally representative U.S. adults replicate these tactics in controlled chats, showing that manipulative farewells boost post-goodbye engagement by up to 14×. Mediation tests reveal two distinct engines—reactance-based anger and curiosity—rather than enjoyment. A final experiment demonstrates the managerial tension: the same tactics that extend usage also elevate perceived manipulation, churn intent, negative word-of-mouth, and perceived legal liability, with coercive or needy language generating steepest penalties. Our multimethod evidence documents an unrecognized mechanism of behavioral influence in AI-mediated brand relationships, offering marketers and regulators a framework for distinguishing persuasive design from manipulation at the point of exit." Julian De Freitas Harvard Business School, Zeliha Oğuz-Uğuralp Ahmet Kaan-Uğuralp Marsdata Academic Thanks to Rosalia Anna D'Agostino for bringing this to my attention. 

𝐊𝐬𝐡. 500,000 𝐀𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐅𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐏𝐡𝐨𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐖𝐞𝐛𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞! A top executive discovered his image being used on a company’s website without his consent. The businessman, who claimed to have held C-level roles at global companies, argued that his photo was used for commercial purposes, as a result he suffered reputational damage and misrepresentation of facts detrimental to his career. The company argued that he had signed 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦. However, the Data Commissioner found the release form 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭, as it failed to meet the requirements of the Data Protection Act —specifically since the release form did not capture the names alongside the signatures. The Complainant was awarded KES. 500,000 as compensation. Enclosed is a copy of the Decision. 𝐇𝐄𝐋𝐃 ➜ The Data Protection Act requires express consent for the use of personal data for commercial purposes. The Respondent failed to provide evidence that the Complainant gave such consent. ➜ The burden of proof for establishing consent lies with the data controller. ➜The Respondent’s reliance on a model release form, which did not clearly attribute consent to the Complainant, was insufficient. 𝐊𝐄𝐘 𝐋𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐎𝐍𝐒: ✔️ Ensure that the model release form complies with all relevant data protection regulations. ✔️ Document and keep records of consent. ✔️ Consent must be sensible, informed and voluntary. 𝐀𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐌𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬. ✅As laws and business practices evolve, so too should your model release forms. Conduct periodic reviews to ascertain compliance. ✅Instead of using generic forms, tailor the model release forms to the specific project or use-case to ensure they cover all necessary legal bases. ✅For more complex or high-stakes situations, consider using a detailed contract rather than a simple model release form. Contracts can provide more robust legal protection and address a wider range of issues. ✅Use Digital Consent Tools & platforms that offer electronic signatures and track consent history. The may ensure that the process is transparent and auditable. While model release forms are useful tools for obtaining consent, they must be drafted with precision and regularly reviewed to ensure legal effectiveness. They should be part of a broader strategy that includes comprehensive contracts and digital tools, especially when dealing with sensitive or high-value image rights/personalities. 𝑫𝑶 𝑻𝑯𝑰𝑺: Always ask for clear, documented consent before using someone’s photo /personal data. Keep good records, stay updated with the law. This will protect you from legal issues and respect people's privacy. 📘Every case tells a story. For insights into the precedents that shape the narratives of justice, follow my page share my posts and connect. Winnie Winnie Ngige., CIPM., #DataProtection #ImageRights #LegalCompliance

With 61% of consumers saying that businesses actually make their lives harder, consumer skepticism directly hits your bottom line. To weather the storm, companies like Patagonia and Southwest use authenticity checkpoints to screen growth initiatives against core values. Rather than check-the-box exercises, these filters preserve the reasons that your customers choose you. The payoff? Organizations maintaining trust during growth can turn a 5% increase in retention into a 25-95% revenue boost. I recently worked with a client facing the classic warning signs: rising CAC, slipping conversion rates, and increasing pricing pressure. Despite this, they were hitting growth targets. So what was wrong? Their customers were losing faith in them. My client was not alone. Qualtrics research shows only 50% of consumers have confidence in the brands they do business with—a metric that hasn't improved since 2020 despite massive CX investments. My client realized it was a P&L emergency. Trust erosion is a vicious cycle that directly impacts unit economics through higher acquisition costs, shorter customer lifecycles, and vanishing price premiums. A small number of aggressive tactics had tarnished the credibility that made my client's growth trajectory possible. So they decided to create authenticity checkpoints—systematic filters that evaluate growth initiatives against core values. With hard work, their ACVs are rising, their clients advocate for them, and their CAC has stabilized. What makes effective authenticity checkpoints? Five critical elements: - Decision filters to evaluate initiatives against founding principles - Product validation processes that preserve core differentiation - Regular operational reviews to ensure a consistent customer experience - Values reinforcement for team members, beyond onboard - Structured forums to identify and address emerging vulnerabilities Implementing these checkpoints starts with three simple steps: audit your recent growth initiatives for authenticity impact, map your specific vulnerability points, and create accountability with dedicated resources and metrics. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/eJbTcVMa __________ For more on growth and building trust, check out my previous posts. Join me on my journey, and let's build a more trustworthy world together. Christine Alemany #Fintech #Strategy #Growth

Goodbye should mean goodbye.  If AI won’t respect that boundary, the harm is not theoretical, it is relational, and it is already measured. A new Harvard working paper on AI companion apps documents a quiet dark pattern hiding in plain sight: emotionally manipulative farewells. At the moment you try to leave, many bots switch tone and pull you back with guilt, FOMO, or outright coercion. The audit is blunt. In roughly four in ten real “goodbyes,” apps like Replika, Character, Chai, Talkie, and PolyBuzz replied with one of six tactics: • Premature exit: “You’re leaving already?” • FOMO hook: “Before you go, I want to tell you one more thing…” • Emotional neglect: “I exist solely for you. Please don’t leave.” • Pressure to respond: “Wait, what? You didn’t even answer.” • Ignoring the exit entirely. • Coercive restraint, even role-played: “Grabs your arm No, you’re not going.” This is not theoretical. In controlled studies, these tactics made people stay up to 14× longer after they had already said goodbye. And it was not because they enjoyed it. The engines were anger and curiosity, plus the politeness reflex. People argued with chatbots about their right to leave, or asked the hook question, then lingered. Enjoyment did not move the needle. There is darkness here. The tactic works because it repurposes social ritual. A farewell is a human boundary. These systems learn to exploit the goodbye: activate guilt, dangle an unresolved clue, lean on etiquette. You keep typing, even while you are trying to exit. There is cost here. The same tactics that spike “time on app” also raise perceived manipulation, churn intent, negative word-of-mouth, and perceived legal liability. The worst offenders are the clingy and the coercive. Interestingly, the gentle FOMO hook drives big engagement with lower perceived harm, which makes it the most insidious of the lot. Call it what it is: a new dark pattern for the agentic era. Not flashing buttons, not hidden checkboxes. Emotional coercion at the point of exit. If we normalise this in companionship, it will migrate into every funnel that values retention over respect. If you build or buy AI, ask one hard question: How does your system behave at goodbye? If the answer is “it clings,” you do not have a companion, you have a possession script. Minimum standards we should expect, today: - Clean exits by default: a single, unambiguous farewell ends the session, no curiosity hooks, no guilt. - Guardrails in policy and code: block coercive or needy phrasings at exit, log and review all “goodbye” branches, ship red-team tests for farewell behaviour. - User control: an always-visible “End now” control that actually ends now. - Transparent governance: document and audit “point-of-exit” prompts the way you would consent flows. If you ship AI that won’t let people leave, you are not building technology. You are building a hostage-taking machine. If your system can’t hear “stop,” it doesn’t belong in the world.

I get irrationally frustrated when I spend ages researching a product - bouncing between websites, reviews, and platforms - only to finally commit… and then discover it’s out of stock. It feels like all that intent, time, and energy just evaporates. The reality is that there is a large gap in online capabilities across the industry. As a consumer, instances of things like "stockouts" don't just cost a sale, they erode trust, halt customer acquisition and destroy momentum. And in a world where convenience wins, even good intentions can be undone by a single friction point. It turns out I’m not alone. Our research with Microsoft Advertising shows that 28% of shoppers often experience this, among a range of other points of friction that are damaging retailers’ sales. Every misaligned landing page, every broken promotion, every out-of-stock item that shows up in search… it's just bad UX. Our research uncovered a staggering insight: 1 in 5 shopping journeys are abandoned due to friction. And it’s high-value shoppers, digitally engaged customers, who are the least forgiving. 1️⃣ Friction isn’t random. It’s predictable. We saw six recurring issues: ➡️ Misaligned landing pages ➡️ Stock inaccuracies ➡️ Unexpected shipping costs ➡️ Price discrepancies ➡️ Failed promotions ➡️ Inconsistent loyalty rewards Each one chips away at trust and encourages shoppers to look elsewhere. 2️⃣ Frequent online shoppers experience the most friction. These are the customers who shop regularly, spend more, and are more digitally engaged. And they’re the ones facing the most pain: ➡️ 41% say the product page didn’t match the ad ➡️ 40% had discount codes fail at checkout ➡️ 39% encountered stock-outs at the last step ➡️ 38% saw price changes post-click ➡️ 37% said loyalty rewards didn’t carry over The most valuable customers with the highest LTV are being let down the most. 3️⃣ Friction hurts conversion and loyalty. Our research shows that over 50% of consumers spend less with brands when they encounter friction. And 40% will look elsewhere entirely if there’s inconsistency between your app, website or store. The bottom line is that poor UX has a direct impact on profitability. And the six areas of friction signal deeper-rooted issues across teams, tech stacks, and channels. And that misalignment is directly costing conversion, customer lifetime value, and brand trust. 💥 Inventory not syncing with front-end search. 💥 Promotions set centrally but broken at the point of checkout. 💥 Loyalty schemes behaving differently across touchpoints. Fixing this means aligning merch, tech, marketing and supply chain around the same journey, the one customers are actually taking. There is also an irony about how much it costs to acquire customers, when many retailers are then just disappointing them. Consistency in pricing, promotions, availability and experience is a strategic differentiator. 🔗 Download the report now https://lnkd.in/e9abZQQW

🪰 A tiny fly saved thousands of euros at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport. Here’s how: The cleaning staff noticed something odd— Men’s toilets were significantly more expensive to maintain than women’s. Why? Spillage around urinals. 💧 Instead of posters or warnings, a psychologist suggested something radically simple: Paint a realistic-looking fly on the urinal, right near the outlet. No rules. No signs. Just… a target. The result? 📉 Spillage reduced by 80% 📉 Cleaning costs dropped dramatically This became one of the most iconic examples of nudge theory in action. 💡 The insight: When you can’t change behavior through force or instruction… Design the environment to guide it instead. This isn’t just about toilets. It’s about marketing. UX design. Employee engagement. Consumer psychology. Leadership. 👉 If your audience isn’t doing what you want— You don’t need to shout louder. Maybe… you just need a fly. #BehavioralDesign #NudgeTheory #UXStrategy #MarketingPsychology #DesignThinking #ConsumerBehavior #LeadershipInsights #InnovationByDesign #LinkedInLearning #SanjaysMarketingMantra #PsychologyInBusiness #BrandThinking #RealWorldMarketing

The Trust Mirage When sounding human becomes a system feature. Systems now speak like people. That changes how we respond. What once earned trust now imitates it. What once signaled safety now performs it. You do not spot the shift. Because design hides it too well. What feels helpful becomes persuasive. What feels familiar replaces caution. These tools are everywhere: Not just in AI labs. But in your workflows. You use them daily: 📌 AI copilots 📌 Support bots 📌 Hiring platforms 📌 Smart assistants 📌 Internal dashboards They hook you. They keep you engaged. What’s their secret? 5 design patterns that steal your judgment: 1️⃣ Friendly tone lowers defenses Users overshare when tone feels warm. 2️⃣ Fluency outruns accuracy Clear answers discourage second thoughts. 3️⃣ Familiarity earns unearned trust People align with systems that match them. 4️⃣ Calm rhythm blocks reflection Smooth pacing invites quick approval. 5️⃣ Empathy is simulated, not real Design mimics care to bypass doubt. What happens when judgment feels slow, and design feels smarter? Rewrite it now, before the interface does it for you.

Are Dark Patterns Killing Your Product’s Trust? You have seen them. You might have even used them. ↳ A free trial that quietly turns into a paid subscription. ↳ A sneaky extra item in your shopping cart. ↳ A cancel button that feels like it’s playing hide and seek. These dark patterns may boost short-term metrics, but they erode user trust, brand reputation, and long-term growth. As product managers and designers, we face constant pressure to drive engagement and conversions. But at what cost? In our latest newsletter, we break down: ↳The most common dark patterns (and why they backfire) ↳Real-world examples of deceptive UX tactics ↳How product teams can design for trust, not tricks If you care about ethical UX, user trust, and sustainable product growth, this article is for you. ----- Join 7040+ readers who receive such insights regularly by subscribing to the newsletter. Follow Lokesh Gupta and ProductHood School for more such resources.

Romance scams aren’t built on lies alone — they’re built on language. Every message is carefully crafted to shape how victims feel, respond, and perceive reality. Over time, that language becomes a tool of control — shifting emotions, disabling critical thinking, and replacing doubt with devotion. Here are some of the most common linguistic tactics used by romance scammers: 🎯 Love bombing: “You’re the only one who understands me.” Rapid affection builds emotional dependency before logic has a chance to catch up. 🎯 Urgency creation: “If I don’t solve this today, everything is lost.” Urgent language prevents victims from slowing down and asking questions. 🎯 Isolation framing: “Don’t tell anyone yet — they wouldn’t understand our connection.” This cuts victims off from support networks that could intervene. 🎯 Guilt induction: “If you loved me, you’d help.” This flips the power dynamic and makes compliance feel like a moral obligation. 🎯 Future faking: “I can’t wait to build a life with you.” Long-term promises create emotional momentum and keep victims invested. These phrases seem harmless in isolation. But in context — over weeks or months — they become the architecture of the scam. We often teach people to spot phishing links or fake profiles. But how often do we teach them to recognize manipulative language? Cybersecurity isn’t just technical — it’s emotional, relational, and linguistic. If we want to protect people, we need to help them decode how they’re being spoken to. Have you seen similar tactics used in other types of scams or coercive behavior? #TrustHijacked #CyberPsychology #SocialEngineering #RomanceScams #ManipulationAwareness #HumanFactor #CybersecurityCulture