TFL Vsebine / Pravni letopis

Avtorica obravnava pojav temnih vzorcev (angl. dark patterns) kot manifestacijo vedenjskoekonomskih spoznanj v digitalnem oblikovanju in kot pravni problem, ki ogroža avtonomijo uporabnikov. V prvem delu pojasni psihološke mehanizme, s katerimi temni vzorci vplivajo na uporabniške odločitve – z izrabo kognitivnih pristranskosti, avtomatiziranih odzivov in kontekstualnega uokvirjanja odločanja. Na podlagi analize literature predstavi razvoj koncepta od Brignullove tipologije zavajajočih praks do sodobnih taksonomij, ki temne vzorce razumejo kot večnivojske mehanizme vplivanja, pogosto vgrajene v arhitekturo digitalnih sistemov. V drugem delu se avtorica osredotoča na pravne odzive Evropske unije in ugotavlja, da se je regulacija začela z reinterpretacijo že obstoječih mehanizmov varstva zasebnosti in potrošnikov, danes pa jo dopolnjujejo akti, ki temne vzorce urejajo neposredno. Analiza pokaže, da pravo varstva osebnih podatkov nudi le delno zaščito – omejeno na primere, kjer gre za manipulativno pridobivanje soglasij –, potrošniško pravo pa ponuja širši okvir, vendar trči ob koncept »povprečnega potrošnika«, ki ne odraža realnih vedenjskih pristranskosti. Novi akti, kot sta Akt o digitalnih storitvah in Akt o umetni inteligenci, so pomemben premik k varstvu avtonomije v digitalnem odločanju. Avtorica tako prispeva k vzpostavitvi normativne razprave o temnih vzorcih v slovenskem prostoru in zagovarja potrebo po pravnem okviru, ki presega informacijsko in potrošniško paradigmo ter priznava človeško kognitivno ranljivost kot izhodišče digitalne regulacije.

The article examines dark patterns as a manifestation of insights from behavioural economics in digital design, and as a legal issue that threatens user autonomy. The first part explains how dark patterns influence user decisions by exploiting cognitive biases, automated responses and the contextual framing of decision-making. Drawing on an analysis of existing literature, it traces the evolution of the concept from Brignull’s classification of deceptive practices to modern taxonomies that recognise dark patterns as multi-level influence mechanisms, frequently embedded within the architecture of digital systems. The second part focuses on the European Union’s legal responses, finding that regulation initially involved reinterpreting existing privacy and consumer protection mechanisms, but has since evolved to encompass the direct regulation of dark patterns. The analysis reveals that personal data protection law provides only limited protection, extending only to cases of manipulative consent, while consumer law provides a broader framework, albeit with the drawback of relying on the concept of the “average consumer”, which does not accurately reflect real behavioural biases. New legislation, such as the Digital Services Act and the Artificial Intelligence Act, represents a significant shift towards safeguarding autonomy in digital decision-making processes. Thus, the article contributes to establishing a normative debate on dark patterns in the Slovenian context, advocating the need for a legal framework that recognises human cognitive vulnerability as the starting point for digital regulation, rather than relying on the information and consumer paradigms.

Dark Patterns as a Legal Problem: How Effective Is European Legislation at Limiting Digital Manipulation?