Wednesday 25 October 2023

Addictive design of digital services

Today the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) of the European Parliament adopted the draft report on Addictive design of online services and consumer protection in the EU single market (file to the procedure is here). This times nicely with the increased attention give to addictive online design by the European Commission, which intends to devote one of its two panels to this topic at the forthcoming 3rd Annual Digital Consumer Event (held on 30 November - more information and agenda is here). 

By Rodion Kutsaiev on Unsplash
The report draws attention to psychological vulnerabilities that 'certain' platforms and tech companies exploit online. The main concerns are about addictive, behavioural and manipulative design that maximises the frequency and duration of user visits. This is seen as leading to both non-material and material harm. Thus IMCO calls on the European Commission to conduct more evaluation whether new regulation could help 'close existing regulatory gaps with regard to consumer vulnerabilities, dark patterns and addictive features of digital services'. This follows from the assessment that existing measures (Digital Services Act and AI Act, but also Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) are insufficient to address these issues. As examples of dark patterns that current legislation would not consider as unfair the report mentions: infinite scroll, default auto play function, constant push notifications, read receipt notifications. 

Interestingly, in the report: 

  • Point 3 - mentions the need to re-evaluate the main current notions of EU consumer law from the perspective of digital age, such as 'consumer', 'vulnerable consumer' and 'trader'. 
  • Point 4 - draws attention to the limited function of transparency to fight deceptive design and calls for urgent need to assess whether certain practices should not be blacklisted under the UCPD (rather than transparently disclosed). 
  • Point 6 - argues for (amongst others): 
    • the integration of the concept of digital asymmetry into the UCPD; 
    • reversal of the burden of proof for practices presumed to be addictive; 
    • an obligation to ethically design digital services, which would be necessary to comply with professional diligence obligation.
  • Point 7 - concerns the need to re-evaluate addictive and mental health effects of interaction-based recommender systems, incl. hyper-personalised systems. Overall, this point calls for the re-assessment of the desirability of online personalisation, and replacing recommender systems based on it with such that are based on chronological order or that give users more control.
  • Point 8 - proposes introduction of the digital 'right not to be disturbed' by 'turning all attention-seeking features off by design'.
  • Point 9 – calls for fostering of ethical design by default, which could be supported by the Commission upholding a list of good design practices. As best practices it mentions: 
    • ‘think before you share’, 
    • turning of all notifications by default, 
    • more neutral recommendations, 
    • up-front choice between colour and greyscale apps, 
    • warnings when users have spent more than 15-30 minutes on a specific service, 
    • automatic locks for certain services after a preset time of use, 
    • weekly summaries of total screen time (but also with an option for a break-down), 
    • in-app awareness campaigns on potential risks. Educational campaign should promote ‘self-control strategies to help individuals develop safer online behaviours and new healthy habits’.

The European Parliament intends for the principle of ethical design to be predominant for digital services and products (see press release here) in order to counteract harmful impact of digital addiction on mental health. The attention to mental health issues arising from online interactions, especially amongst minors, is rising, not only in the EU. The UK has just finished accepting submissions to its inquiry into Preparedness for online safety regulation (see here). This sensitive topic definitely requires more attention, thus we will be keeping an eye on the forthcoming discussions on this.