3 ms·

Sorry, but this seems like a stupid law. Clearly fraud was already illegal, all that was needed were court cases clearly demonstrating these patterns. A law li

Sorry, but this seems like a stupid law. Clearly fraud was already illegal, all that was needed were court cases clearly demonstrating these patterns. A law like this just encourages people to tweak their practices slightly and continue as before.

makomk 12y ago
Fraud is still illegal. What this means is that people don't have to prove the practices in question are fraudulent, just that the companies used them.
- thomasahle 12y ago
  That's exactly why it would be more scalable as a court decision. A law can never encompass every possible dark pattern, while a new court decision can be added every time somebody discover something bad, and sue. Additionally, court decisions will be more efficient, since once a pattern is found fraudulent, it is not only banned, but there is also a whole case of discussion to refer to. With a specific law like this, with no prior cases, we aren't really much further than we already were.
Someone1234 12y ago
Your argument falls flat simply because the reality on the ground was that existing laws and enforcement wasn't taking care of the problem. These new laws give more powers to consumers to effectively take the law into their own hands. Additionally fraud (at least in the UK) doesn't impact several of the practices as they weren't misleading, just obnoxious (like adding things to your cart, or fees not on the advert but on the final checkout page). > A law like this just encourages people to tweak their practices slightly and continue as before. By that logic why try and do anything at all ever? It is a very defeatist attitude that results in inaction.
- thomasahle 12y ago
  > By that logic why try and do anything at all ever? Just sue them, so that it becomes well known whether the practice is illegal. If it's not illegal, make a law covering the general problem, and let the court specify the individual matches.

makomk 12y ago

Fraud is still illegal. What this means is that people don't have to prove the practices in question are fraudulent, just that the companies used them.

thomasahle 12y ago
That's exactly why it would be more scalable as a court decision. A law can never encompass every possible dark pattern, while a new court decision can be added every time somebody discover something bad, and sue. Additionally, court decisions will be more efficient, since once a pattern is found fraudulent, it is not only banned, but there is also a whole case of discussion to refer to. With a specific law like this, with no prior cases, we aren't really much further than we already were.

Someone1234 12y ago

Your argument falls flat simply because the reality on the ground was that existing laws and enforcement wasn't taking care of the problem. These new laws give more powers to consumers to effectively take the law into their own hands. Additionally fraud (at least in the UK) doesn't impact several of the practices as they weren't misleading, just obnoxious (like adding things to your cart, or fees not on the advert but on the final checkout page). > A law like this just encourages people to tweak their practices slightly and continue as before. By that logic why try and do anything at all ever? It is a very defeatist attitude that results in inaction.

thomasahle 12y ago
> By that logic why try and do anything at all ever? Just sue them, so that it becomes well known whether the practice is illegal. If it's not illegal, make a law covering the general problem, and let the court specify the individual matches.