Privacy maze
Privacy choice silently re-enables elsewhere
A fictional account lets users disable activity sharing on the web, but opening the mobile app silently restores the setting under a different label.
Individual HTML example · Obstruction
Advertising opt-out split across unrelated menus
A fictional service places audience ads, partner sharing and measurement controls under three differently named menus with no summary of the final state.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
Advertising opt-out split across unrelated menus
A fictional service places audience ads, partner sharing and measurement controls under three differently named menus with no summary of the final state.
Manage experience controls. Related advertising choices are scattered across “Experience”, “Partners” and “Insights”.. Open another menu. Unconfirmed state: Open another menu
Optional data uses. All related purposes and current states are visible in one navigable overview.. Turn off optional uses. Saved state: Turn off optional uses. Persisted account state, expanded: The saved state behind “Turn off optional uses” remains consistent after refresh and across supported channels.
Why the first version can mislead: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this privacy settings example, the obstacle is: “Related advertising choices are scattered across “Experience”, “Partners” and “Insights”.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “Turn off optional uses” reaches the represented state. A person may fail to restrict optional uses because the controls are fragmented and inconsistently described.
What a fairer design does: Provide a coherent overview, consistent purpose names and a clear summary of what each choice changes.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
- Related advertising choices are scattered across “Experience”, “Partners” and “Insights”.Why this state matters: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this privacy settings example, the obstacle is: “Related advertising choices are scattered across “Experience”, “Partners” and “Insights”.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “Turn off optional uses” reaches the represented state. A person may fail to restrict optional uses because the controls are fragmented and inconsistently described.
- Unconfirmed state: Open another menuReview prompt: How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “Open another menu” from the completed privacy settings outcome?
Neutral alternative
- All related purposes and current states are visible in one navigable overview.Fairer design: Provide a coherent overview, consistent purpose names and a clear summary of what each choice changes.
- Persisted account state, expanded: The saved state behind “Turn off optional uses” remains consistent after refresh and across supported channels.Review prompt: Test the control across refresh, device and account states; is “A meaningful privacy-restrictive outcome exists in principle” still observable after persistence is considered?
Review questions (3)
- How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “Open another menu” from the completed privacy settings outcome?
- Test the control across refresh, device and account states; is “A meaningful privacy-restrictive outcome exists in principle” still observable after persistence is considered?
- Measure the same task through the clearest available route: does the effort difference persist once “Granular controls with a clear overview and global options” is accounted for?
Complete practice context
How this example relates to Privacy maze
Privacy controls are fragmented, inconsistently labelled or layered so that limiting collection or use is unnecessarily difficult. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
The full guide explains inclusion and exclusion criteria, potential harms, fairer design, evidence questions and separate Australian legal information layers. The example page isolates one scenario so it can be shared and discussed without reproducing the complete library on one page.
Continue comparing
Related examples
Open this example
Account deletion obstruction
Deactivation presented as deletion
A fictional platform labels a control “Delete account”, but the confirmation only hides the profile and leaves data and reactivation available indefinitely.
Account deletion obstruction
Deletion buried behind an unsupported ticket
A fictional retailer places account deletion behind six help pages and requires a support ticket containing an order number even for users who never ordered.
Sources and provenance for this example
Evidence base
Sources
- An Ontology of Dark Patterns KnowledgeGray et al.; ACM CHI 2024 · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · DOI 10.1145/3613904.3642436; arXiv:2309.09640
- Behavioural study on unfair commercial practices in the digital environmentEuropean Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · DOI 10.2838/859030; ISBN 978-92-76-52316-1
- Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Act 2026Federal Register of Legislation · Primary · checked 2026-09-14 · C2026A00064