
Some Dark Patterns Now Illegal in UK - robin_reala
http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2014/08/26/some-dark-patterns-now-illegal-in-uk-interview-with-heather-burns/
======
epaga
Sounds like an excellent law to stop the horrid practices in so many online
shops. Let's hope a form of this law spreads throughout Europe and the U.S.

This caught my eye, however:

"A failure to comply cancels the transaction. You can get your money back and
keep the goods. If the sale was for a service or a digital download, the
contract is cancelled and no further payments are due."

Wow. Seems like it would make a ton of financial sense to go hunting for
online shops located in the U.K. that are not complying with this law yet and
take advantage of this, helping them learn "the hard way"?

~~~
rmc
> _Let 's hope a form of this law spreads throughout Europe_

Ummm... this _is_ a EU wide law. The UK, as a member state of the EU, had to
implement it into UK law (that's how EU laws work).

This is _already_ the law of the land in all EU countries. Nearly all good
consumer rights laws are done at the EU level.

~~~
Someone1234
You misread the quote. They said "Europe" not the EU. So presumably they were
hoping it would spread to non-EU European countries also.

~~~
pdpi
I find that it's increasingly the case that "Europe" gets used in place of EU
in much the same way as people will say "America" when they mean the USA.

~~~
Someone1234
Then people are "increasingly" using it incorrectly. Europe is a continent,
the EU is a political alliance. There are too many countries within Europe but
not in the EU to use the terms synonymously. For example:

Albania, Andorra, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Iceland,
Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Russia, San
Marino, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Vatican City

I think it is pretty interesting that I got heavily downvoted for pointing out
that the person above me conflated Europe and the EU and then tried to correct
someone else based on that misunderstanding. This place is turning into Reddit
more and more day by day, people are using the down arrow as a "I disagree"
button... Which is exactly why Reddit has gone right down the toilet.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Then people are "increasingly" using it incorrectly. Europe is a continent,
> the EU is a political alliance._

Well, it's exactly the same as with America (the continent) and United States
(a country). You can either argue that both calling EU Europe and USA America
is wrong and we should stop, or accept that in both cases, people can figure
things out from the context.

~~~
V-2
Yes, it's a common metonymy, but whether its use is valid or misleading for no
good reason depends on the context in my opinion.

If somebody said "let's hope this law spreads throughout America", you
wouldn't assume they meant just the US, would you?

Calling the United States "America" is often handy, but it's sort of a sloppy
language all in all. Personally I rather avoid it if ambiguity is likely.

People are also often referring to the United Kingdom as "England"
(disregarding the existence of Scotland and Wales) and while it's probably
fine as a mental shortcut, it can make you misunderstood or get on somebody's
nerves once in a while. And that's a fact of life, too.

Disclaimer: I'm European / EU citizen / Polish.

~~~
Perseids
> People are also often referring to the United Kingdom as "England"
> (disregarding the existence of Scotland and Wales)

More to the point, when I use "England" instead of "United Kingdom" I
disregard the separation and jurisdictional peculiarities of Scotland, Wales
and England and refer to the whole as "England". As neither I nor the great
majority of people in my social circles know how their government works
precisely and what their national identity multitude is about, the linguistic
separation seems mood anyway. That's not to say that it is _actually_
unimportant, though.

~~~
V-2
That's what it's like from your point of view, sure, but I'm kind of taking
the point of view of someone who values Scottish (or Welsh) national identity
and for them being labeled as "England" even for the sake of convenience could
be a bit of a slap (and again, not that it's your intention, obviously).

For what it's worth: roughly 10 years ago, when Poland was about to join the
EU, Yes supporters used a slogan "Yes, I'm an European" [and thus I vote for
entering the EU] in the pre-referendum campaign.

I would see this slogan (consciously playing on the Eastern complex, to be
sure) as somewhat offensive in its coarseness. What was it really saying? 1000
years of European history and heritage doesn't matter and you are disqualified
from being an European if you don't support joining the EU? :)

~~~
Perseids
> I would see this slogan (consciously playing on the Eastern complex, to be
> sure) as somewhat offensive in its coarseness. What was it really saying?
> 1000 years of European history and heritage doesn't matter and you are
> disqualified from being an European if you don't support joining the EU? :)

I'd see the slogan in a more positive light: After all, we are _all_ Europeans
and we have enough common heritage to work together. That's what I associate
with the EU, the wish to overcome our historic differences and build a
political union that is up to our globalized world, something strong enough to
defend the values we share. And also the dream to live in a more united world.
For example, when I worked in Switzerland for half a year, there were all
those little things that acutely showed me that I was a second class resident.
In other EU countries I've got more of a feeling of having a right to be
there, not being just tolerated or granted a favor.

Maybe as a German I'm also a little bit insensitive to national identities.
Having a glaring historical example in everyone's mind of what certain kinds
of nationalism and patriotism can lead to has sure driven that kind of
"belonging somewhere" out of me. Foremost I see myself as a European and as
member of certain online communities that don't exist geographically and only
then as a German.

------
yardie
Hey AirBnB. I hope you're listening. Sneaking in service charges and "cleaning
fees" is no bueno. I know it's not you doing the later but I hate it when I
find an apartment at an appropriate price then good hoodwinked for additional
services I don't particularly care for.

~~~
aero142
Cleaning fees make perfect sense to me. When renting a house out, if I stay 1
night, the owner has to clean the house once. If I stay 1 week, the owner has
to clean the house once. Seems like this is just matching pricing to costs.

~~~
yardie
Cleaning fees and service fees, to me, are like delivery fees. Everyone
assumes they are paying for them in the rental.

And almost everyone I know uses AirBnB because it is cheaper than a hotel. But
once you start adding on fees that value diminishes. The last place I rented
wasn't exactly located downtown and, after all the fees, only $15/night
cheaper than a hotel. Our final 2 nights we stayed at a hotel and had a lot
more fun.

I've been a big proponent of Airbnb but my last stay reminded me that
civilians are civilians and tourists are tourists. Some have very different
expectations when it comes to housing.

~~~
twistedpair
Funny, last time I staid in a hotel, they didn't charge me a cleaning fee...
and they cleaned the room every day!

~~~
thedufer
That's actually the reason there's no cleaning fee; its more or less the same
amount of work per day, regardless of turnover. If it only gets cleaned once
at the end of each stay (typical of AirBnB), then it costs more per day for a
1-night guest than a 7-night guest. Adding fixed fees in additional to the
daily rate allows the price to match the cost better.

------
idea15webdesign
Hi all - glad to see the interview creating such a buzz!

Regarding all your questions, I've listed all the original source texts of the
law and its implementing guidance here.
[http://www.consumerrightsdirective.info/links-and-
resources](http://www.consumerrightsdirective.info/links-and-resources)

------
idlewords
A good example of beneficial government regulation, for people who refuse to
believe such a thing exists. (Another good example is the Internet itself, but
it's best to start small)

~~~
poof131
Yes, a good piece of regulation, but who believes in no regulation? To me, no
regulation means no law, which means anarchy. And the only people who want
anarchy are the same types of people who would be dead the first day it broke
out.

But much of the regulation in the US is regulatory capture. We need regulation
for the people, not for the companies. Moving in the right direction is a
challenge and we need to break down the illusion that half the population is
for good (those on our voting team) and the other half for bad.

~~~
protonfish
So I commented on your first paragraph just to make a joke, then I read your
second.

There is no reason to believe that cross-party unity would solve anything, and
plenty to make us think it would make things way worse. Two parties that are
friendly and cozy with each other are equivalent to a single party. That will
leave US voters with no real choice at the ballot box, and remove the only
real repercussion to a politician - the fear that their opponent will take
them to task during the next election.

Partisan politics is the most powerful tool we have to preventing politicians
from running rampant with power. Heaven help us if they ever unite against
their common enemy - the people.

~~~
tormeh
Not really. Friendly relations is a prerequisite for compromise which is a
prerequisite for progress. Lots of parties have friendly relations without
society collapsing. Your belief is very ignorant and US-centric.

~~~
lutusp
> Friendly relations is a prerequisite for compromise which is a prerequisite
> for progress.

Ask a professional diplomat whether this idea is true. Israelis and
Palestinians achieve compromises all the time -- they're fragile and short-
lived, but they're certainly compromises.

Unions and management come to compromises regularly, after sometimes bloody
demonstrations (in the early days of the organized labor movement).

In a now-famous story from 1943 Berlin, a group of wives of Jewish men
protested and demonstrated against the regime's plan to round up and
exterminate their husbands. Because the demonstration took place in Berlin,
because of its size and international visibility, and because the wives were
not themselves Jewish, the Nazis reached a compromise -- the men were
released.

Reference: [http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/german-wives-win-
re...](http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/german-wives-win-release-
their-jewish-husbands-rosenstrasse-protest-1943)

Quote: "As the women continued to protest at Rosenstrasse into March 6, the
German leadership finally gave in, even as 25 of the intermarried Jews were
being deported to Auschwitz. The Nazi Propaganda Minister, Goebbels released
the remaining intermarried Jews in an attempt to maintain the visage of
conformity in Berlin. The protests of Aryan women against the internment of
their Jewish husbands had shown open dissent to the Nazi program and for
Goebbels (with Hitler’s approval), it was more important to eliminate this
dissent by releasing those Jews than to allow such dissent to be visible to
other Germans or international bodies. Thirty-five intermarried Jews that had
already been sent to Auschwitz were also returned. While twenty-five of the
detainees were not released, thirty-five intermarried Jews that had already
been sent to Auschwitz were also returned to Berlin."

> Friendly relations is a prerequisite for compromise ...

In reality, this is proven false every day.

> Your belief is very ignorant and US-centric.

Your ignorance of both current events and history is embarrassing.

~~~
coriny
Though I think he is correct that politics does not need to be antagonistic to
prevent "politicians running rampant with power". Plenty of democracies use
more collaborative politics than the USA (e.g. the Polder model of democracy
in the netherlands). And I think most people would agree that the US
republicans & democrats could engage more constructively while maintaining
ideologically distinct positions (and not turning the country into a single
party fascist state).

~~~
lutusp
> I think most people would agree that the US republicans & democrats could
> engage more constructively while maintaining ideologically distinct
> positions ...

Yes, absolutely. My point was that compromise doesn't require that the parties
share values or show mutual respect -- history proves otherwise.

------
dsirijus
Any sufficiently advanced business model is indistinguishable from a scam.

~~~
TeMPOraL
This is golden. Adding this to my quotes file.

It's really true. Scams are just the extreme end of ways-to-profit-somewhat-
legally spectrum of business models.

------
ChuckMcM
I am not sure this attempt at legislating good behavior will have much effect.
Too often these things are easier for the bad guy to ignore than for the
individual to prosecute. I've wondered for a while if there was a way of
creating some sort of "Small Claims Court as a service" system that would not
overly benefit cranks. Something where you could mail in a complain with
attached details and have the prosecution engine just run through it. Someone
gets a bunch of these and it upgrades to class action or something. The
downside (and reason I've not done something like this yet) is that it also
enables bullies and malicious prosecution. It is quite a challenging system
(weirdly with many parallels in game design where you're trying to keep
opponent factions "balanced")

~~~
ZoFreX
Filing a small courts claim in the UK is really, really easy, doesn't require
a lawyer, and actually favours the little guy. I don't think we really need a
SCSAAS system.

Historically, legislating this kind of behaviour has had a very big effect in
the UK. We have strict trading and advertising standards and by and large
people adhere to them. Companies that frequently flout the rules tend to get
in more trouble once a journalist or watchdog gets wind of it and makes a big
stink.

------
TeMPOraL
I wonder why there seem to be no companies that use "not being cheating
bastards" as a marketing advantage. I'd gladly pay more to buy from a shop
that emphasizes transparency and fairness.

~~~
rtb
Huh? There are loads. I can think of several companies that I buy things from
because I know I won't get messed with even if the headline price might appear
a little higher than their competitors (think EasyJet v.s. RyanAir).

~~~
TeMPOraL
From my relatively small experience I remember EasyJet trying to upsell random
crap in a similar way to RyanAir. I might be misremembering though, I haven't
flew with any of them since last year.

Anyway, I meant why there are no companies with marketing messages that would
amount to "we're not going to fuck you over like the Other Company We Can't
Name".

~~~
rtb
> I meant why there are no companies with marketing messages that would amount
> to "we're not going to fuck you over like the Other Company We Can't Name".

Probably because they can't name them in the ads, which would make the message
rather confusing :-)

~~~
TeMPOraL
Well, if the other company is doing something bad, it wouldn't be difficult.
Actually, to provide some sort of an answer to my original question, we had
sort-of this style of marketing with domain registrar, i.e. "hey, we don't try
to upsell you crap, don't support SOPA and definitely don't shoot elephants
for fun!".

------
techmatters
"A failure to comply cancels the transaction. You can get your money back and
keep the goods. If the sale was for a service or a digital download, the
contract is cancelled and no further payments are due." I would think that,
under contract law, you get your money back and you return the goods - that
would be cancelling the transaction. Likewise for digital downloads or
services. Can anyone explain why the provider would be penalized further ?

~~~
Argorak
Because that could create a situation where the seller can put a burden on
you. (arcane rules on how to return goods, trying to get shipment expenses
from you, etc.)

~~~
idea15webdesign
We probably should have clarified that this is an online and and offline law
affecting all sales and purchases, not just e-commerce ones.

The law provides better protections to consumers, but it also provides some
protections to retailers against some of the dodgy practices they've had to
deal with from consumers. Returns and expenses are a HUGE part of the law.

My favourite bit is what I call the "anti-wardrobing provision". Under the new
law, when you return an item, retailers can now deduct a fair percentage of
its cash value from your refund if you have returned it clearly damaged or un-
resellable. This is because of wardrobing - the practice of buying an item of
clothing, deliberately keeping the tags on, wearing it once, and returning it
for a refund stinking of your night out.

------
zem
i was pleasantly surprised that the article called out specific, high-profile
companies. all too often the writers simply pussyfoot around that part.

------
jiggy2011
I wonder what effect this will have on ryanair ticket prices? As I understand
it the tickets themselves are not profitable, it's the extras.

~~~
raverbashing
A lot of extras are sold on the plane or at checkin (like 60EUR for a boarding
pass)

That's why I never fly with them. Too much BS to waddle through.

~~~
rmc
_A lot of extras are sold on the plane or at checkin (like 60EUR for a
boarding pass)_

That's not an extra, that a "you should have printed the PDF at home" charge.

~~~
reitanqild
> "you should have printed the PDF at home"

Just remember that with Ryanair, simple is not an option unless you pay and
pay and pay and pay.

Example: Printing boarding passes a few days ahead: not possible. Oh, unless
you pay for reserved seats. Otherwise feel free to wait until a few days ahead
of departure, remember to check in, or you'll be hit with another charge at
checkin.

Source: Traveled w/Ryanair this summer with my family. The whole process was
so annoying that I made it a priority not to give them a single € extra, even
if that meant spending more than an hour at a slow internet café somewhere to
print boarding passes for our flight home.

~~~
mahouse
You can print your passes between 15 days and around 2 hours before the
flight. I don't get your point.

I've flown with Ryanair plenty of times and, if you are able to ignore the
constant bugging with booze/parfums/car rentals onboard and can stand the
small seats, they are the probably the best thing that there is.

~~~
agos
it's 7 days, not 15. the point is that if you're on a trip longer than 7 days
you have to print them while on your trip, which might not be easy.

~~~
mahouse
For the life of me, I'm sure it is (or at least it was) 15 days. And yes,
printing it while on your trip can be a major nuisance (happened to me once;
it was not a nuisance for me on that trip, but depending on where you are, yes
it can be).

------
mcv
The title says UK, but the article says it's for the entire EU.

~~~
harrybr
It's an EU directive which has recently been enacted into law in the UK.
Sorry, we should have made that clearer in the interview text.

------
hyperpape
I'm surprised how hard it is for me to think of a case where including some
extra by default makes sense for both the seller and customer.

My initial reaction was a mixture of happiness about combatting hidden charges
and suspicion that it might rule out some reasonable practices. I opt out of
the sandwich drink and chips combo at a lot of restaurants, but most other
patrons like it. But after mulling it over, I can't think of any of the latter
that would apply to online sales.

~~~
GhotiFish
That's a reasonable worry. You never do notice things that are working
correctly, because they are working correctly.

------
tim333
The worst one I had was Vistaprint. I bought some business cards then found a
mysterious £9.99/month charge disappearing from my credit card which turned
out to be for some discount club they'd signed my up for in the small print
without me being aware. Bastards! I never did get that back. Hopefully the new
laws should help stop that.

------
suvelx
> As a part of that, retailer fees and surcharges must be brought out into the
> open and explained. Retailers can no longer charge “processing fees” in
> excess of what it actually costs them.

Does that mean charging me to print out my own ticket is now illegal?

Because it certainly doesn't cost 2 quid to generate a pdf.

~~~
maxbrown
They may be able to frame this as an additional service, not a processing fee,
as there are alternatives to the (essentially free and clearly much more
convenient) print-at-home option.

------
sentenza
Oy. That was legal? It seems that I have been cross-border shopping a bit too
carelessly.

I know that the English Newspapers will manage to put an anti-EU spin on this,
but cross-border e-commerce has to become easier. From regulation to shipping
cost, there are a lot of things that need to be harmonized.

~~~
PeterisP
The actual EU directive is from 2011, but it takes some time for it to get
adopted in local legislation; more time for any transition periods to pass (as
in, here's the law, change your process by yyyy/mm/dd), and even more time
while the habits change.

------
whyleyc
"Quite simply, businesses who don’t comply face a loss of revenue. If you make
a purchase, whether that’s buying goods or a service, on a non-compliant web
site, you have the right to recourse through your nearest Trading Standards
office. A failure to comply cancels the transaction. You can get your money
back and keep the goods. If the sale was for a service or a digital download,
the contract is cancelled and no further payments are due."

... has anyone successfully tried this in practice yet ? It would be good to
know of "test cases" on sites potentially in breach. You can bet if complaints
are upheld those sites will suddenly experience overwhelming interest from
consumers :)

------
thomasfl
I'm really looking forward to buy airplane tickets from Ryanair without having
to remove insurance from my shopping basket manually.

EU has been doing lots of good things to ensure consumer rights over the
years.

------
AJ007
For those addressing a US audience, some of this stuff will get you in trouble
with the FTC as well as State AG's. Other practices may bring in revenue now
which will have to be paid out later from class actions.

There are also strict rules regarding influencing how the designs of providing
permission to call a user behave; these were updated with the TCPA and went in
to effect earlier this year. Many companies remain out of compliance and
subject to $2,000+ fines per individual called.

------
JohnTHaller
I've noticed that eNom/Bulk Register has stopped sneaking bogus 'mobile
website converter trial' and similar nonsense into the cart when you buy/renew
domain names as of late. They're designed to not have a fee for the first
month, so they sneak it into your cart and then hope you don't notice when it
starts automatically billing to your credit card a month later. I wonder if
their disappearance is related to this?

------
spindritf
_Financial services are exempt under the Directive_

Great. Let's take all the downside of heavy regulation but give up most of the
upside.

~~~
sentenza
If I, as a consumer from continental Europe, can't be subject to what is
essentially a rippoff by UK online shops any more, then it is a win. It even
makes it easier for UK online shops to be compliant with consumer protection
laws within the rest of Europe.

I fail to see the downside.

~~~
spindritf
Downsides are the same as always. The higher the regulation burden, the fewer
new companies and products we will see. This is how we ended up relying on
Americans for almost every service online, computers, phones...

Even with all the upside, I don't that's the right trade-off. But once you
start piling up exemptions, and industry-specific rules, you forgo most of the
benefit you could have achieved with uniform regulation.

This was the whole point behind letting EU set up the regulatory regime: to
create a single EU-wide market. It's self-defeating to unify it across
countries and then break up into hundreds of industries.

~~~
ZoFreX
If a company that formerly would have existed will now not spring into
existence because it breaks these new regulations, then I say good riddance.
One less scam merchant looking to make a fast buck by ripping off their
customers. That's an area we really don't need any more innovation in.

~~~
spindritf
It's not about breaking this or that particular regulation. It's the sheer
number you have to comply with. Even if every single regulation was positive
on its own, in aggregate they could still stifle economic development and lead
to perverse results.

Take web for example. Of course it would be better if every website followed
standards, was available to impaired users, and over ssl. But if you started
fining people who fail to live up, you would make it prohibitively expensive
to run a private site outside of a handful of massive platforms established by
large corporations who can afford developers and usability testing.

We understand that in this context. The advice to start with whatever works
and iterate from there is common.

It's the same with running a company. The more requirements there are, even if
each one is perfectly reasonable, the fewer people will be able to afford to
start them, the less innovation we will see, the more we will rely on foreign
products from countries with lesser regulation burden.

------
rcthompson
I feel like this is at least partially a success story for people like those
at darkpatterns.org who have put a lot of time and effort into documenting
these abuses. It seems pretty likely that without someone cataloging all these
abuses, they would have been able to stay under the radar and remain just
something you have to put up with.

------
mason240
>The “sneak into basket” pattern is now illegal. Full stop, end of story. You
cannot create a situation where additional items and services are added by
default.

active.com is a horrible offender. If you sign up for an event, you are
automatically enrolled in their $60/year subscription fee - which they don't
charge for until a month later.

------
skynetv2
when will the US adopt a similar law? Ticketmaster will be first one to go
bonkers if this law ever makes it to the US

~~~
eli
I'm more annoyed by telecom, internet and other utilities that add fees for
"regulatory compliance" or for other costs that the provider had to pay.

If you want to pass your costs on to your customers that's fine, but then
raise your prices. Don't advertise a fake, unobtainable low price and then add
fees disguised as government mandates.

~~~
tormeh
"Oh, poor us! The guv't wants our money! May you perchance help us? It was a
total surprise, honest!"

It's an easy sell in the US, I imagine.

~~~
eli
It's an easy sell because they stick it right next to "Sales Tax" and make it
sound like something the government is requiring the customer to pay.

------
andy_ppp
I find that Ebay makes it very unclear what the fees are if you sell
something; this £0.50 to list something I assume they would have to say + x
percent of the say price now? Be even better if they were force to list an
estimated sale price and fee...

~~~
twistedpair
Last time I listed something on eBay they nickled and dimed me hard, but it
was clear that I was being nickled and dimed. Perhaps the only hidden fee was
that you've got to pay through PayPal and take that 2-3% hit.

------
Shivetya
I seem to be missing something, are the direct fines for non compliance.
Refunds and keeping an item are all nice and such but still requires action on
part of the consumer. Some sites may factor that in and continue the process.

------
ck2
In the US, hidden charges would be rallied against as "unamerican" and "let
the consumer decide" (when consumers have virtually no such power because of
lack of options/transparency).

------
ehPReth
Related: [http://darkpatterns.org/](http://darkpatterns.org/) \- provides a
list of common dark patterns with examples

------
njharman
TIL there's a thing called "Dark Patterns".

~~~
mcintyre1994
[http://darkpatterns.org](http://darkpatterns.org) is an interesting read.

------
tn13
This is ridiculous. So now every tom dick and harry trying to sell something
online need to keep in mind a new government regulation which can be bypassed
in 10 different ways by those who will do it nevertheless.

At this rate government will even regulate the size and position of buttons.
This is something the tech community should unwelcome rather than acting like
cheerleaders.

~~~
weavie
Be upfront and honest with your clients about what you are providing and what
you are charging for it and you won't have anything to worry about.

~~~
tn13
No one is arguing about that. My opposition is government trying to
micromanage what constitutes "upfront and honest".

------
thomasahle
Sorry, but this seems like a stupid law. Clearly fraud was already illegal,
all that was needed were court cases clearly demonstrating these patterns.

A law like this just encourages people to tweak their practices slightly and
continue as before.

~~~
Someone1234
Your argument falls flat simply because the reality on the ground was that
existing laws and enforcement wasn't taking care of the problem. These new
laws give more powers to consumers to effectively take the law into their own
hands.

Additionally fraud (at least in the UK) doesn't impact several of the
practices as they weren't misleading, just obnoxious (like adding things to
your cart, or fees not on the advert but on the final checkout page).

> A law like this just encourages people to tweak their practices slightly and
> continue as before.

By that logic why try and do anything at all ever? It is a very defeatist
attitude that results in inaction.

~~~
thomasahle
> By that logic why try and do anything at all ever?

Just sue them, so that it becomes well known whether the practice is illegal.

If it's not illegal, make a law covering the general problem, and let the
court specify the individual matches.

------
cessor
I feel really bad about the fact that this is a thing. Apparently there are a
lot of "entrepreneurs" that will always choose to annoy and damage others for
a little currency. Why do these things have to be made illegal? They were
immoral to begin with, that alone should stop people from doing it. Shame on
you, people who sneak insurance into shopping carts and Ask-Toolbars into Java
installers.

~~~
TomGullen
> Why do these things have to be made illegal?

To stop people doing it.

~~~
lilsunnybee
You've missed the point, which was that it's lamentable such clearly immoral
business practices have to be made illegal to keep people from engaging in
them. Disallowing such practices brings benefit only because employees and
business owners were being so unscrupulous to begin with.

------
lorddoig
Take the number of times you've heard the sentiment "and this will protect
consumers! yay!" \- call it _h_ (for _hope_ ). Now take the number of times
you've heard such sentiments be justified in a logical, rigorous manner - call
it _j_.

Calculate an independent thought index, _t_ , as follows: _j / h_.

Call me if it's greater than 0.01. I'll be over here in the corner watching as
we entrench half- (or hundredth-?)baked ideas into statute books that don't
change for decades.

The economic damage of these petty regs (enforcement, compliance, cognitive
load on businesses, yadda yadda) far outstrips that which brought them into
existence in the first place - that I'd put my life on (but good luck actually
measuring it.)

These kinds of 'consumer protection' laws are exactly the reason why the UK
only has 5 major banks operating as a government-backed cartel - the laws
became so complex that the market is impossible to enter now. Just ask Richard
Branson - he wanted a bank for a _long_ time, but the only way he could get
one was to buy a preexisting one. This argument extends almost verbatim to the
insurance and payment processing (and more) industries.

The internet is what it is because it has been almost completely free (as in
liberal) and had very low barriers to entry up until very recently. The day I
have to fill in a government form to open a webshop else fear prosecution is
the day we let another good thing die - and shit like this is a big step down
that road.

~~~
Karunamon
I find it really, _really_ hard to give a crap about the poor ickle businesses
in this case, because you're not going to trip over these laws unless you're
going out of your way to do something sneaky.

If you enter into it with good faith, i.e. be as forthright as possible with
your customer, you won't end up in a situation where these laws will ever
apply to you.

The people that will have a massive "cognitive load" are those who see the
regulations as barriers and impediments to be worked around.

Things such as "Don't insert shit into your customer's cart that they didn't
explicitly and knowingly request" is one example of the regulation, and is
dead simple to both comprehend and implement. The intent and practical
application of this particular piece of this particular regulation is crystal
clear, and will only be muddied by people who like to rules lawyer terms like
"explicitly and knowingly request". I know what it means. You know what it
means. Every person with a functioning set of brain cells knows what it means.
Shady companies will have a hard time with this.

