DSA Dark Patterns

Treat dark-pattern review as an online-platform interface review, not as a catch-all rule for every digital service. The DSA text places Article 25 in the section for online platforms and says the provider must not design, organise, or operate interfaces in a way that deceives, manipulates, or materially distorts or impairs users' free and informed decisions. Article 19 excludes that section for qualifying micro and small online-platform providers, subject to its 12-month post-loss and VLOP rules.

The rule is not limited to intentional deception. Recital 67 covers practices that distort or impair autonomous and informed choices either on purpose or in effect. Product outcomes therefore matter: a design can create Article 25 risk even when the design brief describes the feature as engagement, conversion, or retention optimisation.

The Article 25 carve-out prevents overlap with practices covered by the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive or the GDPR; it does not make those practices lawful. Route the issue to the controlling regime and record why Article 25, consumer law, data-protection law, or more than one non-overlapping rule governs the facts.

Use the examples in Article 25 and recital 67 as test scenarios. Review the live interface, mobile layout, accessibility states, localised copy, notification timing, default settings, and any experiment variant, because the DSA wording covers the structure, design, and functionality of the interface.

A useful test does not ask only whether the screen is technically usable. It asks whether the user can understand the decision, compare options neutrally, decline or reverse the choice without disproportionate friction, and avoid repeated pressure after a choice has already been made.

Evidence should show what a user saw and how the design was assessed against Article 25. Keep enough detail for a reviewer to reconstruct the journey without relying on a product manager's memory or a later interface version.

Do not rely on conversion metrics as proof that a design is acceptable. High completion, retention, or opt-in rates may be why a choice-distorting pattern needs review. Pair analytics with qualitative walkthroughs, accessibility review, complaint signals, and evidence of alternative designs considered.

Article 25 is the core dark-pattern rule, but an interface review often touches other DSA controls. Keep those checks separate so the page does not overstate Article 25: ad transparency, recommender options, protection of minors, marketplace information, and VLOP or VLOSE systemic-risk duties each have their own DSA basis.

For platforms accessible to minors, review persuasive or addictive design with additional care. Commission guidance on protection of minors recommends disabling by default features that contribute to excessive use and removing persuasive design features aimed predominantly at engagement, while noting that following the guidelines is voluntary and does not automatically guarantee compliance.

Review this checklist before approving a new or changed online platform journey. It is designed for product, legal, design, accessibility, trust-and-safety, data protection, and compliance reviewers who need a practical record tied to Article 25.

The checklist should be repeated when the journey changes materially, when experiments alter choice architecture, when a new user segment or Member State language is added, or when complaints show that users may not understand or control the decision. Reassess the Article 19 enterprise-size exclusion after a status change: the Section 3 exclusion can continue for 12 months after a provider loses micro or small status, but it does not apply to a designated VLOP.