【双语精读】App暗黑设计为何屡禁不止?法律为何难介入

 Imagine opening a free app with the simple intention of completing a task. Before you can even begin, a full-screen message appears, blocking your progress. This message asks if you want to try the paid version of the app. The button to "Start free trial" is large, brightly colored, and immediately catches your eye. In contrast, the option to continue using the free version is much smaller, less prominent, and tucked away near the bottom of the screen. To add to the frustration, this intrusive message reappears the next day, and the day after that, relentlessly interrupting your experience. 

 想象一下，你打开一个免费的应用程序，目的只是完成一个任务。但在你开始之前，屏幕上跳出一个全屏消息，阻挡了你的操作。该消息询问你是否想试用付费版本。那个“开始免费试用”的按钮又大又鲜艳，立刻吸引你的注意力。相比之下，继续使用免费版本的选项要小得多，不那么显眼，还被隐藏在屏幕底部。更令人生气的是，这个令人讨厌的消息第二天、第三天都会反复出现，无情地打断你的体验。 

 Many people who encounter these sorts of screens find themselves wondering, "Is this legal?" These designs are often labeled as "dark patterns." They feel pushy and irritating, wasting your time and seemingly engineered to wear you down until you finally give in. Despite their frustrating nature, in most cases, these dark patterns are permitted under the law. 

 许多遇到这类界面的人会忍不住问：“这合法吗？”这些设计通常被称为“暗黑模式”。它们给人感觉强迫且令人恼火，浪费你的时间，似乎是刻意设计用来让你疲于应付，最终妥协。尽管令人沮丧，但在大多数情况下，这些“暗黑模式”是法律允许的。 

 It's important to clarify that the term "dark pattern" is not a formal legal term with a precise definition. Rather, it is a broad label for digital design strategies that attempt to push, confuse, or trap users into making certain choices. As a legal expert specializing in consumer protection and digital design, I want to shed light on the variety of dark patterns in existence. Some are merely annoying, others are aggressive sales tactics, and a few cross into deceitful or manipulative territory. Laws primarily target those latter types. They do not prohibit every design that users find bothersome; instead, they focus on banning designs that unfairly mislead or coerce people. 

 需要明确的是，“暗黑模式”一词并非正式的法律术语，没有严格定义。它更像是一个广义标签，用来指代那些试图推动、混淆或诱导用户做出特定选择的数字设计策略。作为一名专注于消费者保护和数字设计的法律专家，我想揭示现存的各种暗黑模式。有些只是令人烦恼，有些是激进的销售策略，还有少数涉及欺骗或操控。法律主要针对后者类型。它们不会禁止所有用户觉得讨厌的设计，而是着重禁止那些不公平地误导或胁迫用户的设计。 

 In other words, being annoying is not illegal. 

 换句话说，令人恼火并不违法。 

 This reality may feel disappointing to some, but it is quite normal. In everyday life, numerous things can irritate us without breaking any laws. For instance, consider a cashier who asks if you want to apply for a store credit card. They might highlight a discount you will miss if you decline and then ask again. Most shoppers understand this as a sales tactic and simply say no; if it bothers them persistently, they may choose to shop elsewhere next time. 

 这一现实可能让一些人感到失望，但这是很正常的。在日常生活中，有很多事情会让我们感到恼火，却并不违法。比如，收银员问你是否想申请商店信用卡，他们可能会强调拒绝的话会错过折扣，然后又再问一次。大多数购物者都理解这是销售策略，只会简单地说不；如果他们觉得持续被打扰，可能下次会选择去别的地方购物。 

 Online experiences are much the same. Pop-ups that repeatedly appear can be rude and intrusive, while buttons designed to make you feel guilty may come across as poor taste. Yet, users generally recognize when something is merely annoying. Usually, they can close the app, ignore the message, or stop using the service altogether. 

 网络体验也是如此。反复出现的弹窗可能显得无礼且令人反感，而设计成让你感到内疚的按钮则可能被认为是不合适的。但用户通常能分辨出哪些只是令人讨厌的设计。一般来说，他们可以关闭应用，忽略消息，或者彻底停止使用该服务。 

 The law also permits salespeople to be persuasive. A car dealer attempting to upsell you to a better model is influencing your decision, as is an airline employee offering travel insurance or a restaurant server encouraging you to order dessert. These sales techniques have existed for generations, and digital apps have simply adapted these familiar approaches. 

 法律也允许销售人员采取有说服力的手段。汽车销售员试图推销更高级车型影响你的决定，航空公司员工推荐旅游保险，餐厅服务员鼓励你点甜点，这些都是销售技巧，存在了几代人。数字应用只是将这些熟悉的方法进行了改编。 

 This explains why lawmakers cannot simply outlaw all forms of "manipulation." Many app designs seek to persuade users openly and within legal boundaries. 

 这也解释了为什么立法者不能简单地禁止所有形式的“操控”。许多应用设计试图公开且在法律允许的范围内说服用户。 

 So, what behavior crosses the legal line? 

 那么，什么行为会触犯法律呢？ 

 Consumer protection laws, such as the Federal Trade Commission Act, center on whether a design is likely to mislead a reasonable user. Annoyance alone does not warrant legal action. The crucial question is whether the user is at risk of confusion or deception. 

 消费者保护法，例如《联邦贸易委员会法案》，关注的是设计是否可能误导一个理性的用户。仅仅令人恼火并不足以构成法律诉讼。关键问题在于用户是否有被混淆或欺骗的风险。 

 Designs that obscure vital information, make optional choices appear mandatory, or mislead users about the function of a button are more likely to violate the law. Examples include fake countdown timers designed to create false urgency, advertisements disguised as genuine content, one-click buttons that secretly trigger purchases, or cancellation processes that seem complete but leave the subscription active. These tactics go beyond aggressive salesmanship; they are deceptive. 

 那些故意隐藏重要信息、把可选项伪装成必须项，或者误导用户按钮功能的设计，更有可能违法。比如，制造虚假紧迫感的假倒计时，伪装成真实内容的广告，一键按钮悄悄触发购买，或者看似完成却仍保持订阅状态的取消流程。这些策略超出了激进推销的范畴，是欺骗行为。 

 In these instances, the app maker's intent is not always the decisive factor. Companies cannot evade responsibility by claiming, "We did not mean to trick anyone." Instead, the law often asks, "What would a reasonable user infer when encountering this screen?" 

 在这些情况下，应用开发者的意图并非决定性因素。公司不能以“我们无意欺骗任何人”为由逃避责任。法律通常会问：“一个理性的用户看到这个界面会如何理解？” 

 Research indicates that even mild dark patterns can nudge individuals toward decisions they might not ordinarily make. Because of this, regulators have increasingly scrutinized subscription traps, hidden fees, and convoluted cancellation procedures. 

 研究表明，即使是轻微的暗黑模式也能推动用户做出他们通常不会做的决定。正因如此，监管机构越来越关注订阅陷阱、隐藏费用和复杂的取消程序。 

 Why do dark patterns appear so widespread? 

 为什么暗黑模式看起来如此普遍？ 

 Many people assume there are no laws governing dark patterns because they encounter them so frequently. However, this prevalence stems from the term encompassing a broad spectrum of behaviors, ranging from harmless nagging to outright deception. 

 许多人认为没有法律规范暗黑模式，是因为他们经常遇到这些设计。然而，这种普遍性源于“暗黑模式”一词涵盖了广泛的行为，从无害的唠叨到赤裸裸的欺骗都有。 

 It also highlights the practical limits of enforcement. Regulators cannot investigate every irritating screen on every app; they must prioritize the most egregious offenders. Consequently, many borderline cases persist, making the issue seem larger and more perplexing to users. 

 这也凸显了执法的实际限制。监管机构无法调查每个应用中每个让人烦恼的界面；他们必须优先处理最严重的违规者。因此，许多边缘案例依然存在，使得问题在用户眼中显得更加庞大和复杂。 

 When people ask why there is no law explicitly banning dark patterns, the reality is that laws do exist. Yet, these laws do not prohibit every annoying or pushy design. Instead, they target lies, misleading tricks, and unfair obstacles. 

 当人们问为什么没有明确禁止暗黑模式的法律时，事实是法律确实存在。但这些法律并不禁止所有令人讨厌或咄咄逼人的设计，而是针对谎言、误导性手段和不公平障碍。 

 The boundary between permissible persuasion and illegal deception can be blurry. This ambiguity is intentional. It reflects the law’s attempt to balance protecting consumers while allowing fair business practices in a complex world filled with both ethical and unethical designs. 

 合法的说服与非法的欺骗之间的界限可能模糊不清。这种模糊是有意为之。它反映了法律试图在保护消费者和允许公平商业行为之间取得平衡，而现实世界中充满了伦理与非伦理的复杂设计。