Dark patterns are like invisible guardrails pushing users toward choices they might not make under full transparency. They’re embedded in interfaces, nudging, confusing, or sometimes outright obstructing users to fulfil business goals. If you've ever tried to unsubscribe from a service and found yourself stuck in a labyrinth of second-guessing chatbots and confidence-shaking prompts, you'll know what I mean.
Imagine a world where you could just cancel, delete, or downgrade without the interface actively working against you. It’s what good usability should be: straightforward, honest, designed to help users achieve their goals. But where usability advocates for simplicity, clarity, and empathy, dark patterns co-opt these principles to serve the business's interest over the user’s.
As part of a research project for my MA in User Experience Design, I've encountered how dark patterns are used against users specifically in chatbot interfaces, and why sometimes (perhaps even often) this is done intentionally by businesses.
I want to propose that rather than embracing dark patterns to frustrate users into retention on the part of the business, transparency could be a competitive advantage instead.
Repeat offenders
One of the clearest offenders for dark patterns is the forced retention tactic. Businesses are acutely aware that users cancel subscriptions when they’re unhappy or when costs no longer align with perceived value. Instead of responding with improvements, many double down with barriers: endless prompts, false options, links that loop back. A classic “click-to-subscribe, call-to-cancel” model. The irony? The more friction users encounter, the less likely they are to trust the brand. Usability is traded for short-term retention metrics, even if it erodes brand value long-term.
Dark patterns also hijack usability principles. Confirmation steps, for example, can be a good thing. They prevent accidental actions, give users a moment to reflect. But layered in excess, confirmations become roadblocks. When a user clicks “cancel,” they shouldn’t have to field three screens asking, “Are you really sure?” The design intent has shifted from supporting the user to stopping them.
Good usability relies on clarity, whereas dark patterns exploit vagueness.
Another subtle, pervasive tactic: ambiguity. Good usability relies on clarity, whereas dark patterns exploit vagueness. Imagine a button that says, “Continue” instead of “Subscribe” or a prompt that says, “Keep benefits” instead of “Stay subscribed.” These terms aren’t there by accident. They’re carefully crafted to reduce friction for the action the business wants while increasing the likelihood of unintended user actions.
Dark patterns also toy with choice architecture—the order, accessibility, and framing of options. Want to talk to a human? It’s the smallest button, buried under pages of self-service FAQs and irrelevant chatbot prompts. Need to access your account? Sure, but first, let’s redirect you to a “recommended services” page. These choices are engineered to prioritise business outcomes over user agency.
Transparency as a competitive advantage
And here’s where the issue loops back to usability. A well-designed interface respects the user’s intention, understands the task they’re trying to accomplish, and provides clear, supportive pathways.
During my research, I found that 71% of users struggled with chatbot-driven cancellations, often trapped in repetitive prompts and endless loops that felt deliberately obstructive. For example, participants reported feeling “stuck in a loop” when trying to complete their request, with limited options and no clear exit in sight. This is the antithesis of good usability. It’s a dark pattern designed to wear down user resolve.
Dark patterns, by design, degrade the experience. They actively interfere with usability’s core tenets: transparency, control, and trust. In this study, 61% of respondents expressed frustration over their lack of control, noting how restricted navigation left them feeling helpless. One participant described feeling manipulated, saying that the process “felt like they didn’t really want me to cancel,” an example of design choices that serve the business over the user.
When users don’t trust the information presented to them, they’re less likely to trust the brand itself. And when users lack confidence that their requests are being honoured, that relationship deteriorates.
Transparency isn’t just an ethical stance, it’s a strategic one. The research also revealed that 45% of users found the chatbot’s instructions unclear, which undermined their confidence in the process. When users don’t trust the information presented to them, they’re less likely to trust the brand itself. And when users lack confidence that their requests are being honoured, that relationship deteriorates.
Businesses can say they’re focused on the user, that they’re “customer-first.” But dark patterns tell a different story. Every unnecessary prompt, every convoluted pathway, tells the user: your needs are secondary.
The companies that succeed in today’s market will be those that take the opposite approach, leveraging transparency and straightforward design as true competitive advantages. The brands that remove barriers and empower users will be the ones that genuinely build trust and loyalty.
If this has struck a chord with you, and you'd like to talk content strategy, user experience, and digital strategy, then please get in touch.