The Crime Index · 9 cases
Everyone roasts bad design. We keep the receipts — every deceptive pattern we teach, the law it breaks, where it came from, and a round that lets you feel it. We punch at patterns, never people. And we teach these so we never ship them.
The charge
A design that makes it very easy to get into a situation and deliberately hard to get out — one-tap subscribe, phone-call cancel. The exit must cost roughly what the entrance did; engineered exit friction converts users into hostages, not customers.
On the books since: Brignull's 2010 dark-patterns taxonomy; the Roach Motel bug trap
The charge
Wording the opt-out so declining feels shameful — "No thanks, I hate saving money." It weaponises self-image against the user's actual choice. Ethical persuasion sells the YES; confirmshaming taxes the NO.
On the books since: deceptive.design taxonomy; India's CCPA Guidelines 2023 pattern #3
The charge
Revealing mandatory fees only after the user has invested effort — drip pricing. The advertised number wins the comparison; the real number appears once sunk-cost makes abandoning feel expensive. Total cost belongs where the decision happens.
On the books since: Car-lot documentation fees; India's CCPA Guidelines 2023 (Drip Pricing)
The charge
Items, add-ons, insurance or donations that join the cart without the user's explicit action — usually via a pre-ticked box or an opt-out buried in the summary. Consent is forged by a default. India's CCPA Guidelines (2023) name 'basket sneaking' outright: anything that costs money enters the basket only by the user's own hand.
On the books since: Brignull's taxonomy (2010); India's CCPA Guidelines (2023), pattern #2
The charge
A free trial or discounted period that silently converts into recurring charges — card collected up front, no reminder before billing, cancellation hidden or delayed. India's CCPA Guidelines (2023) call it the 'subscription trap'. Continuity itself isn't dark; the darkness is monetising the user's forgetting instead of their consent.
On the books since: Columbia House negative-option club (1955)
The charge
Repeated, unwanted interruptions — rating begs, notification re-prompts, upsell banners — that continue after the user has said no, until surrender reads as consent. Named in India's CCPA Guidelines (2023). The tell: a 'no' that doesn't persist. Asking is fine; asking AGAIN on a timer that ignores the no is attrition, not persuasion.
On the books since: India's CCPA Guidelines (2023) — 'nagging' entry
The charge
The user sets out to do one thing and something different happens: a download button that installs something else, a close button that opens an ad, an advertised price that never exists at booking. Named in India's CCPA Guidelines (2023). The pattern weaponises learned affordances — the more universal the control, the more profitable its hijack.
On the books since: FTC bait-advertising rules (1959); the hijacked ✕ button
The charge
Ads styled to be indistinguishable from content, navigation or search results, so clicks meant for the product go to the advertiser. Named in India's CCPA Guidelines (2023). Advertising is legitimate; DISGUISE is the pattern — the ad rents the user's trust in a format it didn't earn. The fix is almost embarrassingly simple: label it, visibly.
On the books since: The stamped word ADVERTISEMENT (US Newspaper Publicity Act, 1912)
The charge
Invented stock counts, countdown timers that reset, and fabricated 'people viewing now' numbers that manufacture panic to rush decisions. 'False urgency' leads India's CCPA 2023 list. Real scarcity is information; the LIE is the pattern — and the tell is falsifiability: does the timer expire, does the count come from inventory, do the viewers exist?
On the books since: Cialdini's 'Influence' (1984); CMA hotel-booking enforcement (2019)