In today's world, where digitalization is accelerating, the internet has become one of the primary platforms for commerce. According to the report of the Ministry of Trade dated May 6, 2025, the volume of e-commerce in Turkey increased by 61.7% compared to 2024, exceeding 3 trillion Turkish liras, while the number of transactions reached 5.91 billion. This growth has highlighted the necessity of effective regulations to ensure the protection of consumer rights in the digital environment. One of the prominent areas of regulation in this context is "dark patterns".
The concept was first addressed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ("OECD"). The Committee on Consumer Policy published a detailed report to guide the policy development processes of public authorities and legislative bodies in member countries. The OECD defines dark patterns as "commercial practices that deceive, coerce, or manipulate consumers by impairing or undermining their autonomy, decision-making processes, or freedom of choice, particularly through the use of digital choice architecture and elements found in online user interfaces." It is also noted that such practices may directly or indirectly result in adverse outcomes for consumers, though these harms are often difficult to quantify.
Dark patterns aim to exploit consumers' cognitive biases and mental shortcuts to steer them toward decisions they would not ordinarily make. The OECD categorizes these practices under the following headings:
Forced action: Compelling the consumer to disclose more personal data than desired.
Interface interference: Visually emphasizing options that favor the business.
Nagging: Continuously prompting the consumer to change a setting in favor of the business.
Obstruction: Making it difficult, for example, to cancel a service.
Sneaking: Automatically adding non-removable extra charges at the final stage of a transaction.
Social proof: Displaying notifications about the purchasing activity of other consumers.
Urgency: Creating time pressure through countdown timers indicating the impending end of an offer.
Dark patterns aim to increase businesses revenues by prompting consumers to purchase goods or services, spend more than they otherwise would, or share personal data that they would not normally disclose.
With the amendment published in the Official Gazette dated February 1, 2022, and numbered 31737, changes were made to the Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices ("Regulation"). In the annex to the Regulation, under the heading "Examples of Practices Considered Unfair Commercial Practices" and the section titled "A – Misleading Commercial Practices," dark patterns are addressed in paragraph 22 as follows: "Employing methods in the online environment—such as guiding interface designs, options, or expressions—intended to negatively affect consumers' ability to make decisions or choices, or to alter their decisions in favor of the seller or provider under circumstances that would not otherwise lead to such outcomes." As can be seen, although the term dark pattern is not explicitly used in the Regulation, a definition closely aligned with the one used by the OECD is adopted. The practice is thus recognized as an unfair commercial practice that negatively affects the consumer's decision-making or freedom of choice.
This regulation aligns with the European Union's Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC) and constitutes an important step in Turkey's harmonization process with the EU acquis.
Following this amendment, the Advertising Board ("the Board") first addressed dark patterns during its meeting No. 336 dated August 8, 2023. The Board evaluated practices that directed consumers toward specific choices—such as the presentation of pre-selected options or making alternative choices more difficult in digital environments—and concluded that these constituted unfair commercial practices. Consequently, it imposed various sanctions on the companies involved.
In the 2024–2025 period, the Board adopted a stricter supervisory approach and began issuing decisions in alignment with the EU Digital Services Act (DSA). In light of the Board's decisions, the following examples illustrate what constitutes dark patterns:
Intervention in Subscription Choice through Directive Buttons: On a telecommunications company's website, a direct purchase button was provided for the annual subscription of a specific package, whereas the monthly subscription option was only accessible through an information button. This disparity prevented consumers from selecting their preferred subscription plan, thereby restricting their freedom of choice. The Board assessed this as an unfair commercial practice and noted that the misleading content and interface design violated the principles of fair competition.
Update Direction through Concealed Options: In an advertisement titled "Free Upgrade to ***" by a software company, the option to retain the existing operating system was presented in an inconspicuous manner, nudging consumers toward the upgrade. The diminished visibility of the alternative selection restricted freedom of choice and adversely affected consumer autonomy. The Board evaluated this as a deceptive and unfair commercial practice due to its manipulative interface design.
Guidance through Pre-Selected Subscription Duration: On a publishing company's website, the magazine subscription duration was pre-set to six months by default, and shorter-term subscriptions were not offered as active choices. This design led consumers to enter long-term agreements they would not have chosen under normal circumstances. The Board found this to be a misleading and unfair commercial practice that restricted consumer autonomy.
Forced Purchase through Pre-Selected Installation Fee: On a furniture company's website, the installation service was pre-selected at the product purchase stage, causing consumers to incur additional costs without making an explicit choice. The Board determined that this design limited consumers' freedom of decision-making and impaired their will. It concluded that the interface constituted a misleading and unfair commercial practice.
Card Information Saved Without Explicit Consent: It was determined that an e-commerce platform temporarily stored consumers' credit card information during the payment stage without their explicit consent and failed to provide clear and accessible information regarding this practice. The Board concluded that this exploited consumers' lack of awareness and influenced their economic decisions. It deemed the action an unfair commercial practice, identifying it as unauthorized data processing and insufficient disclosure.
Lack of Explicit Consent in Targeted Advertising: An online retail platform was found to compel users to consent to targeted advertising during the account creation process without presenting a clear choice. The opt-out mechanism was made more difficult than the opt-in process, violating both the right to informed choice and transparency. The Board ruled that this design undermined consumer will and contravened the principle of explicit consent, qualifying it as an unfair commercial practice.
Mandatory Personal Data and Unsubscribe Barrier: It has been determined that an online sales platform mandates personal information that is not necessary for delivery to consumers, such as gender, and makes the consent to data processing for marketing purposes conditional on membership. Due to the processing of personal data without explicit consent and the lack of information regarding the unsubscribe process, the will of the consumer has been adversely affected. The Board considered that this practice was misleading and contrary to the principles of fair competition.
Mandatory Promotional Consent via Membership Agreement: Although a checkbox was presented during registration for marketing and promotional notifications, it was found that a retail site also embedded this consent into the membership agreement, making it effectively mandatory. This impacted the consumer's decision-making freedom and led to commercial communication consent being obtained without proper disclosure. The Board considered this practice misleading and found it in violation of fair competition principles.
Manipulative Service Options and Language Use: A travel platform encouraged consumers to select certain additional services by labeling them with terms like "Recommended," while presenting alternative options with discouraging or negative language. This manipulated the consumer's decision-making process and undermined freedom of choice. The Board ruled that the design and language constituted an unfair commercial practice contrary to fair competition principles.
False Stock and Price Notifications: A digital sales platform urged consumers to make quick decisions by using statements such as "running out" or "lowest price" regarding stock and pricing information. However, these claims were found to be unsubstantiated and unsupported by documentation. The Board determined that the practice misled consumers and constituted an unfair commercial practice, violating fair competition standards.
Misleading Free Trial with Mandatory Card Information: A digital platform, despite offering a "free trial," required consumers to provide payment information and pre-selected a subscription plan, thereby steering user choice. The "free trial" label led to an expectation of access without providing payment details, which was not met. Furthermore, the option to cancel was presented with low visibility, constituting a dark pattern. The Board found this to be an unfair commercial practice and a breach of fair competition principles.
Deceptive Countdown Timers and Urgency Pressure: An online ticketing platform displayed a countdown labeled "5-minute deal" to pressure consumers into making hasty decisions, even though prices did not change after the timer expired. The absence of disclosed discount conditions and lack of evidence led the Board to consider the practice misleading. Additionally, phrases such as "YOU GOT THE DEAL! HURRY UP!" were found to manipulate consumer behavior. The Board ruled this practice to be an unfair commercial practice in breach of fair competition.
Concealed Subscription Cancellation Option: A digital streaming platform was found to have made the cancellation button hard to find and visually inconspicuous, distracting consumers with misleading content during the cancellation process and creating the impression that the process was complete. The actual cancellation step was hidden in fine print, thus impairing consumers' decision-making freedom through a dark pattern. Furthermore, insufficient post-transaction communication and difficulty accessing customer support led the Board to consider the practice both an unfair commercial practice and a violation of fair competition.
Articles 25–27 of the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) introduced groundbreaking provisions prohibiting the use of dark patterns. Article 25(1) of the DSA explicitly prohibits online platforms from designing interfaces that "deceive or manipulate recipients of the service, or otherwise materially distort or impair their ability to make free and informed decisions."
Under Article 5 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the principles of fairness and transparency form the legal basis for the prohibition of dark patterns. The European Data Protection Board (EDPB), in its Guidelines 3/2022 (final version dated 14 February 2023), identified six core categories of deceptive design
The 2024–2025 period has witnessed a tightening of the EU's supervisory approach toward dark patterns. DSA investigations initiated against major platforms such as Meta, X (Twitter), and Temu reflect a regulatory stance that parallels the strict decisions of Turkey's Advertising Board.
In the United Kingdom, the joint guidance issued by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) and the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in August 2023 introduced the concept of "harmful online choice architectures." Under the 2024 Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, the CMA is now authorized to impose fines of up to 10% of a company's global turnover.
In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) lawsuit against Adobe Inc. (June 2024) marked a turning point in the legal treatment of dark patterns. Additionally, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA), in its Enforcement Advisory (September 2024), emphasized the principle of "symmetrical choices."
In Germany, the Bundeskartellamt v. Meta decision was finalized in October 2024 after five years of litigation. The BaFin Guideline (November 2022) became the first sector-specific regulation explicitly prohibiting dark patterns in investment applications.
The decisions of the Board have concretely demonstrated how dark patterns are used as tools of manipulation in e-commerce. These practices limit consumers' freedom of choice through techniques such as pre-selected options, reduced visibility of alternatives, misleading countdown timers, compulsory personal data collection, and obstacles to subscription cancellation. Such designs lead consumers to make choices they would not normally make and jeopardize not only their economic decisions but also the security of their personal data.
The Board has consistently classified digital designs that interfere with consumer will as "unfair commercial practices," emphasizing their incompatibility with the principle of "fair competition." This approach, aligned with that of the OECD, represents a significant step toward protecting consumer rights in digital markets.
Strengthening the regulation of dark patterns is of critical importance for Turkey's integration into the EU's Digital Single Market, particularly within the scope of harmonizing with the EU acquis. With the anticipated EU Digital Fairness Act in the 2025–2026 period, the Turkish legal system is expected to adopt a regulatory framework that aligns with international standards.
In conclusion, dark patterns are not only individual violations of rights, but also constitute elements of unfair competition that disrupt market equilibrium. Therefore, effective administrative oversight and legal enforcement are essential to combating such practices.
Bibliography:
- Ministry of Trade, "E-Commerce Outlook Report in Turkey Published", 6 May 2025.
- Ministry of Trade, "Dark Commercial Patterns Examined by the Advertising Board", 8 August 2023.
- Regulation on Commercial Advertising and Unfair Commercial Practices, Official Gazette, 1 February 2022.
- Dark Commercial Patterns, OECD Digital Economy Papers, October 2022, No: 336, OECD Publishing
- EU Unfair Trade Practices Directive (2005/29/EC).
- EU Digital Services Act (2022/2065).
- European Data Protection Board, "Guide to Dark Designs", February 2023.
- European Commission, "Investigation against Meta", April 2024.
- UK ICO-CMA, "Statement on Online Election Architecture", August 2023.
- U.S. Federal Trade Commission, "Adobe Lawsuit", June 2024.
- California Privacy Agency, "Dark Designs Advisory," September 2024.
- German Bundeskartellamt, "Facebook Decision", October 2024.
- Germany BaFin, "Guide to Investment Practices", November 2022.
Advertising Board Decisions
- Advertising Board Meetings Nos. 336, 340, 341, 342, 343, 346, 349, 350, 351, and 354.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
