"What I'm Interested in is Something that Violates the Law": Regulatory Practitioner Views on Automated Detection of Deceptive Design Patterns

TL;DR

This paper explores regulatory practitioners' perspectives on automated detection of deceptive design patterns, highlighting the gap between research tools and practical regulatory needs, emphasizing transparency, accountability, and legal mapping.

Contribution

It provides empirical insights from practitioners on the limitations of current detection tools and offers recommendations for aligning research with regulatory requirements.

Findings

Existing tools lack transparency and accountability.

Tools need to map interfaces to legal violations.

Practitioners emphasize user requirement research.

Abstract

Although deceptive design patterns are subject to growing regulatory oversight, enforcement races to keep up with the scale of the problem. One promising solution is automated detection tools, many of which are developed within academia. We interviewed nine experienced practitioners working within or alongside regulatory bodies to understand their work against deceptive design patterns, including the use of supporting tools and the prospect of automation. Computing technologies have their place in regulatory practice, but not as envisioned in research. For example, investigations require utmost transparency and accountability in all the activities we identify as accompanying dark pattern detection, which many existing tools cannot provide. Moreover, tools need to map interfaces to legal violations to be of use. We thus recommend conducting user requirement research to maximize research impact, supporting ancillary activities beyond detection, and establishing practical tech adoption pathways that account for the needs of both scientific and regulatory activities.