Dark Patterns, Digital Manipulation, and Social Harm: A Criminological and Ethical Analysis

• In Event: Contemporary issues in cybercrime

Abstract

Decision-making is a complex cognitive, emotional, volitional, and metacognitive process (Strele and Markič, 2021). In the digital era, advances in psychology, neuroscience, and behavioral sciences (Thaler and Sunstein, 2021; Kahneman and Sunstein, 2021) have given rise to novel forms of “choice architecture,” including nudges and, increasingly, so-called “dark patterns.” While nudges are intended to gently steer individuals toward beneficial decisions, dark patterns exploit similar insights to deliberately mislead or manipulate users for commercial or other gains (Costa and Halpern, 2019). Scholars have extensively debated the ethical permissibility of nudges (Bovens, 2009; Hansen and Jespersen, 2013; Schmidt and Engelen, 2020), often focusing on the boundary between acceptable persuasion and impermissible interference with personal autonomy (Feinberg, 1987). However, as more choices migrate to digital platforms governed by algorithms (Morozov, 2013; Završnik, 2017), dark patterns can become more pervasive and dynamic—targeting users in real time and eroding their capacity for free decision-making. These manipulative practices raise critical concerns about privacy, autonomy, and the extent to which they inflict social harm.

This paper explores the ethical and criminological dimensions of dark patterns by examining whether their deployment in digital environments constitutes a new form of cyber-enabled wrongdoing. Drawing upon emerging case studies and theoretical perspectives, it investigates how dark patterns may blur the line between legitimate digital persuasion and manipulation that potentially warrants policy or criminal justice intervention. In doing so, the paper seeks to contribute to a deeper understanding of how algorithm-driven environments can shape individual decisions and potentially normalize exploitative practices that threaten the moral limits of autonomy.

Author

• Manja Skočir, Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law Ljubljana