THE CHOICE BEHIND THE INTERFACE

Dark patterns

Compare misleading consent screens with clearer alternatives.

ILLUSTRATIONS, NOT FINDINGS

These invented examples use adults’ health, biometric and precise-location data to demonstrate design risks. Whether an actual interface is a dark pattern depends on its context and effect. “Better” shows a repair to the illustrated problem, not a complete consent notice or a guarantee of compliance.

VISUAL STEERING

Hard-to-see refusal button

× THE PRESSURE

◐ daylight / fictional screen

Use precise location for nearby recommendations?

Yes, use my dataNo thanks

A loud acceptance button and a faint refusal give unequal weight to the two answers.

✓ A BETTER CHOICE

◐ daylight / fictional screen

Use precise location for nearby recommendations?

Allow location useNo thanks

Give both choices comparable size, contrast and placement. A person should be able to find either answer immediately.

COLORADO Rule 7.10(A)(1)(a)–(b).

CONNECTICUT Freely given agreement and the substantial-effect test: §§ 42-515(7), (14).

PRESELECTION

Preselected consent

× THE PRESSURE

◐ daylight / fictional screen

Use my face template to unlock my account.

☑ Included by default
Continue

A checked-by-default permission makes inaction stand in for agreement.

✓ A BETTER CHOICE

◐ daylight / fictional screen

Use my face template to unlock my account.

☐ I agree to the described biometric use
Leave unchecked to decline.

Start unselected. Give a specific explanation and let the person make an affirmative choice.

COLORADO Rule 7.10(A)(3)–(4).

CONNECTICUT A clear affirmative act is required: § 42-515(7).

CONFUSING LANGUAGE

Confusing checkbox wording

× THE PRESSURE

◐ daylight / fictional screen

Your health-data preferences

☐ Don’t disable permission to share my health data.

The person must decode a double negative before knowing what the checkbox does.

✓ A BETTER CHOICE

◐ daylight / fictional screen

Your health-data preferences

☐ Allow the described sharing of my health data.

State the action directly. Pair it with a clear account of the recipient, data and purpose.

COLORADO Rule 7.10(A)(7)(b)–(d).

CONNECTICUT Specific, informed and unambiguous agreement: § 42-515(7); dark patterns: § 42-515(14).

GUILT AS A NUDGE

Guilt-based refusal wording

× THE PRESSURE

◐ daylight / fictional screen

Use my location history to recommend events.

Yes, I support local eventsNo, I don’t care about people

The refusal label shames the person for declining a data use unrelated to that moral claim.

✓ A BETTER CHOICE

◐ daylight / fictional screen

Use my location history to recommend events.

Allow this useNo thanks

Describe each option neutrally. Explain real consequences without inventing guilt.

COLORADO Rule 7.10(A)(2)(a)–(b).

CONNECTICUT Freely given agreement; substantial impairment of choice: §§ 42-515(7), (14).

OBSTRUCTION

Extra steps to withdraw

× THE PRESSURE

◐ daylight / fictional screen

Stop saving location history

Settings → Account → Help → Contact support → Explain why → Wait

An easy opt-in followed by a slow, hidden withdrawal process makes changing one’s mind harder.

✓ A BETTER CHOICE

◐ daylight / fictional screen

Stop saving location history

Settings → Privacy → Location historyWithdraw permission

Make withdrawal at least as easy as agreement. Honor it as soon as practicable, within the applicable deadline.

COLORADO Rule 7.07(A)–(B); Rule 7.10(A)(5).

CONNECTICUT Effective revocation at least as easy as consent; cease processing within 15 days at the latest: § 42-520(a)(1)(G).

FALSE URGENCY

False countdown

× THE PRESSURE

◐ daylight / fictional screen

Allow health-data advertising for a discount.

00:09Last chance! Offer expires now.*Accept before it’s gone*In this example, the timer resets and the offer never expires.

A fabricated deadline pressures a rushed decision with a claim that is untrue.

✓ A BETTER CHOICE

◐ daylight / fictional screen

Allow health-data advertising for a discount.

Here are the actual offer terms. Review the data use before deciding.Allow this useNo thanks

Remove the false countdown. Disclose accurate terms and give the person a clear, unpressured choice.

COLORADO Rule 7.10(A)(7)(a).

CONNECTICUT Freely given and informed agreement; dark-pattern exclusion: § 42-515(7), (14).

THE LEGAL TEST

Look at the effect on choice.

COLORADO

A definition plus design rules.

The statute addresses interfaces designed or manipulated with a substantial effect on autonomy, decision-making or choice. Rule 7.10 supplies design factors and examples; it is the authority for the detailed Colorado citations above. Agreement obtained through dark patterns does not count as consent.

C.R.S. § 6-1-1303(5), (9); Rule 7.10(A), (C).

CONNECTICUT

Start with the statute.

Connecticut uses a substantial-effect definition and includes practices the FTC refers to as dark patterns. Its consent definition excludes agreement obtained through them. The Colorado design rules are useful comparisons, but are not Connecticut rules.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-515(7), (14), October 2026 reader.

FOLLOW THE AUTHORITY

Sources & context.

Colorado rules

Assigned reader, pp. 29, 31–33. Rule 7.10’s examples inform the fictional screens above; Rule 7.07 supplies withdrawal requirements.

Official 4 CCR 904-3 ↗

Connecticut statute

Assigned reader, pp. 49–50, 55–56. Definitions and withdrawal requirements follow its October 2026 text and numbering.

Official Connecticut statute ↗

FTC context

The FTC’s September 2022 staff report discusses design practices that obscure or impair consumer choice, including prechecked choices, hidden disclosures and cancellation obstacles.

Bringing Dark Patterns to Light ↗

All screens are illustrations created for this guide, not screenshots or allegations about an actual company. Read them alongside the full consent requirements in the Colorado and Connecticut guides.