Melanie Ensign’s Post

A Federal Trade Commission (FTC) review of hundreds of websites and apps revealed that more than three-fourths of them use so-called dark patterns to trick consumers into sacrificing their privacy or purchasing products they don’t need, the agency said Wednesday. The annual review, which concluded in February, studied 642 global websites and subscription-based mobile apps, examining the practices of companies worldwide alongside authorities from 26 nations. Sixty-seven percent of them were found to have deployed multiple “possible” dark patterns, while 76% used at least one. Two types of dark patterns were most frequently detected, the agency said. “Sneaking practices,” which involve obscuring or postponing the sharing of information that might influence consumers’ purchasing choices, were used by many of the audited websites. “Interface interference” — defined as tactics which hide critical information or “preselect” choices, pushing consumers to make decisions favorable to a given company — were also commonly used, the agency said. The FTC did not determine whether the practices were illegal in the more than two dozen countries studied. The agency is increasingly focused on the impacts of dark patterns and has recently punished businesses that use them with staggering financial penalties. In March, the FTC finalized an order fining Epic Games, the maker of the popular Fortnite video game, $245 million after the company settled allegations that it used dark patterns to dupe players into making purchases they didn’t want. “How much money can a company take in by selling virtual costumes, dance moves, and piñatas shaped like llamas?” the agency asked in a press release at the time. “It won’t surprise Fortnite fans to hear that the answer is billions, especially when, as the FTC alleges, Epic used a host of digital design tricks… to charge consumers for virtual merchandise without their express informed consent.” https://lnkd.in/e5EVMqX7

"A Federal Trade Commission (FTC) review of hundreds of websites and apps revealed that more than three-fourths of them use so-called dark patterns to trick consumers into sacrificing their privacy or purchasing products they don’t need, the agency said Wednesday. The annual review, which concluded in February, studied 642 global websites and subscription-based mobile apps, examining the practices of companies worldwide alongside authorities from 26 nations. Sixty-seven percent of them were found to have deployed multiple “possible” dark patterns, while 76% used at least one. Two types of dark patterns were most frequently detected, the agency said. “Sneaking practices,” which involve obscuring or postponing the sharing of information that might influence consumers’ purchasing choices, were used by many of the audited websites. “Interface interference” — defined as tactics which hide critical information or “preselect” choices, pushing consumers to make decisions favorable to a given company — were also commonly used, the agency said. The FTC did not determine whether the practices were illegal in the more than two dozen countries studied. The agency is increasingly focused on the impacts of dark patterns and has recently punished businesses that use them with staggering financial penalties. In March, the FTC finalized an order fining Epic Games, the maker of the popular Fortnite video game, $245 million after the company settled allegations that it used dark patterns to dupe players into making purchases they didn’t want. “How much money can a company take in by selling virtual costumes, dance moves, and piñatas shaped like llamas?” the agency asked in a press release at the time. “It won’t surprise Fortnite fans to hear that the answer is billions, especially when, as the FTC alleges, Epic used a host of digital design tricks… to charge consumers for virtual merchandise without their express informed consent.” In 2022, the agency also published a staff report focused on dark patterns, highlighting many previously under-the-radar techniques." https://lnkd.in/ecm2VQTh

FTC audit of websites and apps finds three-fourths use dark patterns to trick consumers. Key takeaways: 1. A majority of websites and apps use deceptive design techniques, or "dark patterns," to mislead consumers into giving up their privacy or buying unnecessary products, according to a recent FTC review. This manipulation can have significant impacts on consumers' choices and wallets. 2. The FTC's increasing focus on dark patterns could be a harbinger of steep penalties for misuse. The agency recently fined Epic Games, makers of Fortnite, $245 million for alleged use of such techniques. Companies could face heavy financial implications for such practices globally. 3. These findings, as acknowledged by privacy enforcement authorities worldwide, show global dimensions of the issue. This cross-border collaboration could bolster consumer protections on an international scale and might lead to coordinated action against the use of dark patterns. Learn more by visiting The Record from Recorded Future News: https://lnkd.in/e4bJph7R

Temu, the Chinese e-commerce giant, has made headlines by adjusting the conditions of a popular cash giveaway promotion following customer feedback regarding privacy concerns. The initial promotion, which rapidly spread across social media platforms, offered new users the chance to earn between £40 and £50, either through PayPal or as store credit, by sharing a referral link within a 24-hour period. This scheme drew significant participation, with thousands of users sharing links online. However, the promotion's terms raised eyebrows due to their extensive demands on personal data, including the right to use participants' images, voices, and biographical information for advertising purposes "in perpetuity." Such provisions sparked a widespread debate, highlighted by viral posts and scrutiny on platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), where users expressed fears over the potential misuse of their data, including the creation of deepfake content. Responding to the backlash, Temu announced a revision of the terms to narrow the scope of data usage, focusing solely on usernames and profile pictures for referral and winner announcement purposes. This move marks a significant shift from their earlier stance, which defended the broad terms as industry-standard, comparing them to those of competitors like Shein. Data protection experts and consumer advocates had criticized the original terms for potentially violating privacy rights and data protection regulations, such as the UK's GDPR, which demands consent for data processing to be freely given, specific, and revocable. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), the UK's data protection regulator, has acknowledged the controversy and Temu's subsequent amendments, emphasizing the importance of clear, transparent, and lawful data handling practices. This incident underscores the growing scrutiny on data privacy issues in digital commerce, highlighting the challenges companies face in balancing promotional activities with consumer rights and trust. Source: BBC, The Telegraph Assessment These are some wild terms and conditions, basically selling all your personal data for £50.00, something no company should be legally allowed to do, especially one that will likely move the data offshore to possible unfriendly states. It has long been speculated that the main goal of Temu was to collect the data of its users, with critics pointing to its crazy discounts as proof that no legitimate business would be selling anything at such a cost. While this is still not evidence that this is the main goal of Temu, it does indicate that data collection is likely a key goal of the app. Additionally, it is highly likely that without the public backlash, Temu would not have backtracked on its terms and conditions, something to keep in mind when downloading any future apps that seem too good to be true. Follow us to join the intelligence community! #temu #china #sales #marketing #privacy 

Google Battles Court's Monopoly Ruling In a saga unfolding in the courts, Google finds itself grappling with the aftermath of a significant legal defeat. The tech giant, renowned for its expansive ecosystem, faced a jury's decision that marked its practices as monopolistic, particularly concerning app distribution and in-app billing on Android devices. The core of the contention arose from a lawsuit filed by Epic Games, which accused Google of unfair dominance. As a consequence, a federal judge mandated Google to break open its Play Store's gates to rival app markets, a move Google claims could endanger the digital safety of millions. In an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court, Google seeks to halt these orders, arguing that the imposed changes could introduce "substantial new security risks" to the Android platform, affecting over 100 million users in the United States alone. The company fears that by hosting third-party app stores, it might inadvertently endorse them, potentially misleading users about the security of these platforms. Google stresses the threat of "less rigorous protections" in these alternative stores, which could serve as conduits for harmful and malicious software. Moreover, Google highlights the potential for reputational damage to businesses unwilling to associate their products with the dubious content that third-party stores might harbor. The tech behemoth is also concerned about the erosion of user trust through deceptive links, a risk amplified by enabling developers to bypass Google's billing system. This flexibility, Google argues, could strip users of the safeguards they've come to expect, compromising both security and experience. Google decries the court's swift timeline for these radical adjustments as unreasonable, emphasizing the "Herculean task" at hand and the "unacceptable risk of safety" it entails. Amidst this legal turmoil, the company also questions the court's inconsistent rulings, pointing out a perceived double standard in the treatment of Apple's similar practices. Epic Games counters Google's narrative, dismissing the security concerns as fear-mongering. The game developer insists on the urgency of dismantling Google's monopolistic barriers to foster competition and innovation within the mobile ecosystem. As the story continues to unfold, the tech world watches closely, awaiting the court's decision on whether Google's Play Store will remain a walled garden or be forced to open its doors to a broader market landscape. https://lnkd.in/dzBJ7gMR Platform: Engadget Author: Mariella Moon #google #antitrust #monopoly #antitrustlawsuit #digitalsafety #competition #unfairdominance #technews #bigtech

The U.S Federal Court has found Google acted illegally to maintain a monopoly in online search. It’s been lauded as a landmark decision, but is it really? In Europe, dating back to 2010, Google has been found guilty of antitrust breaches in three cases and has been fined over €8 billion. Google search has been operating in Australia ~20years and has continually had 95% market share during this period. Back in 2022, the ACCC used the big-stick approach by issuing a report into competition issues surrounding digital platforms. Of course this went nowhere … https://lnkd.in/eTP4HSVS I’ve been agitating for change for a while, writing some observations back in 2012. https://lnkd.in/eJaudBiA The U.S matter will no doubt be appealed, but the next question is in a world of AI, will traditional search still be dominant? And what tools and techniques will the large U.S companies use to maintain market share (and subsequent advertising profits)? #antitrust #competition #search #AI #cyber

More confirmation from the international consumer and privacy enforcement communities that dark patterns are - unfortunately - still very much present on business websites and apps: https://lnkd.in/ekjmDGVd Two parallel sweeps conducted by the member authorities of the international consumer network (ICPEN) and the international privacy network (GPEN) show that out of the 642 businesses checked, 75% contain at least one dark pattern and 67% employ two or more dark patterns to coerce people into making decisions they don't want to either part from the personal data or to make purchasing decisions against their interests. It is the first time that the two communities join forces to tackle an issue that is prominent in the two legal field and that negatively affect many people in real time. I also consider it a stark reminder that more needs to be done to end online consumer manipulation. As The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets we remain committed to battle dark patterns and their perverse effects on the digital economy, thus protecting consumers and creating an equal level playing-field for businesses. #darkpatterns #consumerprotection #digitalmarketing

Have you ever signed up for a service online and found it nearly impossible to cancel? Or maybe you've been nudged into buying something you didn't really want? You might have fallen victim to "dark patterns." What are Dark Patterns? Dark patterns are manipulative design techniques used in websites and apps to trick users into taking actions they wouldn't normally take, often compromising their privacy or pushing them to make purchases. A recent study by the FTC revealed that nearly 76% of subscription services use at least one dark pattern, and 67% use more than one. Common Dark Patterns to Watch Out For: Sneaking: Hides or makes it difficult to turn off auto-renewal during sign-up. 81% of sites and apps studied used this technique to ensure subscriptions renewed automatically. Obstruction: Makes actions like canceling subscriptions tedious. Example: Grayed-out “X” to close free trial offers, making it hard to bypass. Nagging: Repeatedly prompts users to take a desired action. Example: TikTok's constant prompts to upload contacts. Forced Action: Requires users to perform an action to access functionality. Example: Filling out payment details to start a free trial. Social Proof: Uses the power of the crowd to influence decisions. Example: Showing how many others are enrolling in a subscription. Interface Interference: Manipulates design to favor the business. Example: Pre-selecting more expensive options or using “confirmshaming” language like “I don’t want to miss out, subscribe me!” Please give examples of web services that used dark patterns on you Awareness is our first line of defense against these sneaky tactics ;) #safetytips https://lnkd.in/gNprzivF

Dark patterns are manipulative and malicious interface designs on online platforms which involve deployment of certain cyber tools or tricks which lead customers to being induced or directed towards the online platform’s intended outcome. The term “Dark Patterns” is essentially an umbrella term which is commonly used for practices found on online platforms (such as e-commerce platforms) wherein the user interfaces of such platforms result in choices being made by customers which are detrimental to their own interests (and are in furtherance of the platform’s interest). Click on the link to read more: #darkpatterns #legal #regulations #ministryofconsumeraffairs #legalarticle

Temu wants to be the one and only. The Chinese e-commerce giant is suing seven different websites it claims have infringed on its trademarks. The lawsuit has two types of alleged perpetrators: those accused of creating false websites and those accused of “offering an unauthorized Temu ‘app’” for download. Temu has come after temuh.com, temumore.com and temu-shopping.com with the former accusation, and has pointed fingers at riseapk.net, freeappmods.com, starfiles.co and apkcast.com with the latter allegation. https://bit.ly/3Js7Crr