Dark patterns are design features in digital products that manipulate users into making choices they might not otherwise make, typically to benefit the company at the user’s expense. Once you start looking, these interfaces are everywhere. The giant, colorful “Yes, sign me up!” button dwarfs the tiny, gray “No thanks.” The “unsubscribe” link sends you in circles. The “limited time offer” counts down from 60 seconds only to reset when you reload the page… these are not design accidents, but intentional choices to shift behavior.

The digital economy thrives on these tactics because they work, and because they fit seamlessly into the narrative that faster and easier is always better. But this design approach has a downside: it lowers the threshold for impulsive, poorly thought-out decisions. Dark patterns exploit this very human vulnerability, pushing people to spend money, share data, or sign up for services they might not actually want.

For years, the digital design industry mantra has been to eliminate friction at all costs, but Zac and colleagues suggest that it may be a double-edged sword.

Zac et al. argue that the danger of these deceptive designs goes beyond irritation. They erode autonomy, normalize deception, and distort digital markets. Despite policymakers’ growing attention, especially under the EU’s Digital Services Act, which bans such manipulative interfaces, there’s still debate about who needs protection most. Are there specific vulnerable groups at risk, or does the design of the digital economy itself make everyone vulnerable?

By testing both user susceptibility and the protective role of friction, Zac and colleagues help clarify that debate. Their study suggests that vulnerability is universal—and that even the smallest design obstacles can restore agency.

Zac and colleagues set out to test three ideas: first, how effectively dark patterns manipulate user behavior; second, whether some groups are more prone to these influences; and third, whether introducing friction into the user journey can weaken their effect. 

To explore these questions, the researchers built a mock online trading platform called BeanStocks and recruited over 2,500 UK adults. Participants completed a short demographic and personality questionnaire and were told they were evaluating the site’s design. Midway through the task, they encountered a pop-up “special offer” embedded with one of three dark patterns: 

• False Hierarchy: visually emphasizing the “accept” button
• Confirm Shaming: using guilt-inducing language
• Roach Motel: making it easy to join but hard to decline

A neutral version served as a control. Those who clicked “Proceed to Payment” faced a second decision point on a mock payment page, where they could either select an investment amount or cancel. 

This two-step structure captured both impulsive acceptance and genuine commitment, allowing the researchers to test whether a small dose of friction could break the spell of manipulative design.

Across all conditions, dark patterns significantly increased acceptance rates compared to the neutral design. But, some tricks work better than others. The False Hierarchy condition was especially persuasive, participants were over 20 percentage points more likely to click through than in the control group. The Roach Motel and Confirm Shaming designs also boosted initial compliance, though to a lesser degree.

However, once participants had to take an extra step—selecting an investment amount—the manipulative effects sharply declined. This shows that adding a little bit of friction, for example, making users pause before committing, can weaken the power of these manipulative designs.

Interestingly, these effects didn’t depend much on people’s background. Age, income, and education made no major difference in how likely people were to fall for the tricks. Only one minor difference emerged: men were slightly more likely to follow through with the payment stage.

This points us to a natural conclusion: dark patterns work, but not as well when people have a moment to think. A simple extra step can protect users from being pushed into something they don’t really want.

For policymakers, the message is clear: consumer protection shouldn’t just be about banning dark patterns. It should also encourage structural safeguards. Regulations could require deliberate friction in contexts where the stakes are high, like financial products and data privacy. The EU’s Digital Services Act takes steps in this direction, and the study strengthens its importance.

For designers and tech companies, the findings suggest a paradigm shift. Instead of equating friction with frustration, they could think of it as an “ethical design tool.” A subtle form of protection that preserves user trust. Imagine streaming services asking for confirmation before auto-renewing, or e-commerce sites prompting users to double-check impulse purchases.

And for consumers, the takeaway is both humbling and empowering. If dark patterns work because they hijack cognitive shortcuts, then no one can simply outsmart them. But structural design tweaks like added payment steps can help do the resisting on our behalf.

The study opens up new questions. What forms of friction are most effective: a second confirmation or re-entering details? How much is enough to slow us down without driving us away? Could “ethical friction” become a standard in digital design, much like nutrition labels are in food?

At a broader level, the findings challenge our cultural obsession with seamlessness. As digital life grows ever smoother, this study suggests that the next leap forward might involve slowing down. Thoughtful friction may be the best defense against designs that make thinking optional.

So, can friction save us from dark patterns? The evidence suggests that it might be able to help. By inserting small pauses into our digital lives, customers who leverage the convenience of the web to make purchases, can reclaim a measure of agency.

The bigger lesson is that design isn’t neutral. The difference between manipulation and autonomy can hinge on a single extra step. Although the internet was built on the promise of minimizing clicks, perhaps its future lies in rediscovering the value of a slowed-down online experience.

1. Zac, A., Huang, Y.-C., Moltke, A., Decker, C., & Ezrachi, A. (2025). Dark patterns and consumer vulnerability. Behavioural Public Policy, 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2024.49