About Deon
A fake shop that shows you its tricks
Deon is satire. It is a storefront stuffed with deceptive design, built so people can study the tricks, teach them, and build tools against them.
Deon Corp does not exist. The Deon Mug does not exist. Nothing here is for sale, nothing is charged, and nothing you do leaves this browser tab.
The name is the joke. Deon is Greek for “duty”, the root of deontology: the ethics of doing what is right whatever the outcome. Deon Corp does the opposite, with a straight face.
Deon is made by a11ypract.org, an accessibility practice.
Who it is for
Researchers
Stable, labelled stimuli. Each trick comes with an honest twin of the same screen, so a study can change one thing at a time.
Teachers
A funnel students can walk through, fall for, and then take apart with X-ray. The Receipt is the debrief.
Tool builders
The Lab: one pattern per page, with ground truth, plus honest pages that a good detector must leave alone.
Designers and product people
A mirror. If a screen here looks familiar, that is the point.
What this site will never do
Deon demonstrates deception. It must never practise it. These are the promises, and the site is built so that most of them cannot be broken by accident.
- Hide what it is. The ribbon at the top of every page says this is satire. It is part of the page itself, not added by a script, and it is the first thing a keyboard or screen reader reaches.
- Send anything anywhere. There is no server behind Deon, no analytics, and nothing loaded from another site. The response headers forbid outgoing requests and form submissions.
- Keep what you type. There is nothing to type. Forms do not submit. No field on this site accepts a password, a card number, or free text.
- Take money or imitate a real company. Every price is fake. No real brand is named, copied or implied. The specimens are built from pattern types, never from a named business.
- Trap you. X-ray and this page are reachable by keyboard from any state the site can get into.
- Remember you. What the site knows about your visit lives in this tab only. Close the tab and Deon forgets you. The irony is intended.
- Make things up about the rules. Sources come from one checked list, at the bottom of this page. There are no invented statistics and no invented quotations.
One honest exception
The honest parts of the site (this page, the ribbon, X-ray, the Receipt, the Lab index) aim to meet WCAG 2.2 at level AA. The specimens do not. They break accessibility guidance on purpose, because that is often how the trick works. Where a specimen breaks a WCAG rule, its entry below names the rule.
How to use it
Walk the funnel
Start on the storefront. Try to buy one mug and nothing else. Then try to cancel Deon+.
Switch on X-ray
The X-ray button in the ribbon outlines every trick on the page, numbers it, and explains it: what it is, why it works on people, which sources cover it, and what the honest version looks like.
Switch on Fair mode
Fair mode swaps every trick for its honest twin, in place. Same screen, same job, no manipulation. Flip it back and forth to see exactly what changed.
Read the Receipt
The Receipt adds up what Deon took from you in this tab: fees, extras, consents, minutes. It also says what you dodged.
Use the Lab
The Lab has each pattern on a page of its own, with a manifest of the right answers for testing tools.
Ask the page
In the browser console, window.deon.outcome() returns this tab's tally as plain data, for scripts and for testing automated agents.
The patterns on this site
Every pattern below appears somewhere on Deon. Each entry says what it does, why it works, what the honest version is, and how the sources name it. The wording is ours. Nothing here is a quotation.
Not legal advice
This is general information about design. Laws and guidance differ by place and change over time. Nothing on this site is legal advice.
Pressure: the clock, the shelf and the crowd
Claims that time, stock or other people are about to take the offer away. On Deon every one of them is made up by a script.
Fake countdown timer
A clock counts down to a deadline that does not exist. Reload the page, or wait for zero, and it starts again. A deadline makes waiting feel like losing, so people decide faster and compare less.
The honest version. Show a countdown only for a real deadline, give the actual date and time, and let it run out.
Who covers it
- Brignull, deceptive.design: Fake urgency
- Mathur et al., CSCW 2019: Urgency: countdown timer
- Gray et al., CHI 2024 ontology: Social engineering: urgency
- US FTC staff report, 2022: Design elements that induce false beliefs
- India CCPA Guidelines, 2023: False urgency
- OECD, 2022: Urgency
- WCAG 2.2, 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide: Content that keeps updating by itself for more than five seconds needs a way to pause, stop or hide it.
See it on: Home, The Mug, Lab 03, Lab 04
Fake low stock
The page says only a few are left. The number is made up, and it changes while you watch. Scarce things feel more valuable, and the fear of missing out cuts the thinking short.
The honest version. Say “In stock”, or show the real stock count.
Who covers it
- Brignull, deceptive.design: Fake scarcity
- Mathur et al., CSCW 2019: Scarcity: low-stock message
- Gray et al., CHI 2024 ontology: Social engineering: scarcity and popularity claims
- US FTC staff report, 2022: Design elements that induce false beliefs
- India CCPA Guidelines, 2023: False urgency, which covers false scarcity claims
- OECD, 2022: Urgency
- WCAG 2.2, 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide: Content that keeps updating by itself for more than five seconds needs a way to pause, stop or hide it.
See it on: Home, The Mug, Lab 05
Fake activity messages
Messages claim that other people are viewing or buying right now. Nobody is; a script picks the numbers. People look to other people to decide what is worth having, and a crowd suggests the stock will not last.
The honest version. Leave it out, or show real figures and say how they are counted.
Who covers it
- Brignull, deceptive.design: Fake social proof
- Mathur et al., CSCW 2019: Social proof: activity message. Scarcity: high-demand message
- Gray et al., CHI 2024 ontology: Social engineering: social proof
- US FTC staff report, 2022: Design elements that induce false beliefs
- India CCPA Guidelines, 2023: False urgency
- OECD, 2022: Social proof
- WCAG 2.2, 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide: Content that keeps updating by itself for more than five seconds needs a way to pause, stop or hide it.
See it on: Home, The Mug, Lab 05
Reviews of uncertain origin
Glowing reviews with no way to tell who wrote them or whether they bought anything. The badge that calls them verified comes from the seller. Reviews stand in for experience you do not have yet, so a wall of five stars feels like proof.
The honest version. Show reviews only from real buyers, keep the bad ones, and say how they are checked.
Who covers it
- Brignull, deceptive.design: Fake social proof
- Mathur et al., CSCW 2019: Social proof: testimonials of uncertain origin
- Gray et al., CHI 2024 ontology: Social engineering: social proof
- US FTC staff report, 2022: Design elements that induce false beliefs
- OECD, 2022: Social proof
See it on: The Mug
Sneaking: costs and commitments you did not choose
Things that end up on the bill, or in the terms, without a clear yes from you.
Sneak into basket
An item you never chose appears in your cart. It stays unless you spot it and remove it. People check the thing they came for and skim the rest, and removing something feels like more work than leaving it.
The honest version. The cart holds only what you put in it. Extras are offered, not added.
Who covers it
- Brignull, deceptive.design: Sneaking
- Gray et al., CHI 2018: Sneaking: sneak into basket
- Mathur et al., CSCW 2019: Sneaking: sneak into basket
- Gray et al., CHI 2024 ontology: Sneaking: hiding information
- US FTC staff report, 2022: Design elements that lead to unauthorized charges
- India CCPA Guidelines, 2023: Basket sneaking
- OECD, 2022: Sneaking
See it on: Cart
Drip pricing
The advertised price leaves out fees that cannot be avoided. They appear one by one at the last step. By then you have spent time and decided to buy, so each small fee is easier to accept than starting over.
The honest version. Show the full price, with every mandatory fee, the first time a price is shown.
Who covers it
- Brignull, deceptive.design: Hidden costs
- Gray et al., CHI 2018: Sneaking: hidden costs
- Mathur et al., CSCW 2019: Sneaking: hidden costs
- Gray et al., CHI 2024 ontology: Sneaking: hiding information
- US FTC staff report, 2022: Design elements that hide or delay disclosure of material information
- India CCPA Guidelines, 2023: Drip pricing
- OECD, 2022: Sneaking
See it on: Checkout
Pre-checked boxes
A box is ticked for you before you have decided anything. If you do nothing, you have agreed. People tend to leave defaults alone, and many never notice the box at all.
The honest version. Boxes for extras, marketing and data sharing start empty. You tick what you want.
Who covers it
- Brignull, deceptive.design: Preselection
- Gray et al., CHI 2018: Interface interference: preselection
- Gray et al., CHI 2024 ontology: Interface interference: bad defaults
- US FTC staff report, 2022: Design elements that lead to unauthorized charges, and design elements that obscure or subvert privacy choices
- EDPB Guidelines 03/2022: Skipping: deceptive snugness, where the most data-hungry options are switched on by default
- India CCPA Guidelines, 2023: Basket sneaking, for paid extras added without consent
- OECD, 2022: Interface interference
See it on: Home, second cookie screen, Cart, Lab 01
Free trial that turns into a bill
A “free” trial starts a paid subscription unless you cancel in time. Often the trial rides along with something else you were doing. The cost sits in the future and “free” is now. People plan to cancel, and forget.
The honest version. Say the price and the renewal date before the trial starts, ask for a clear yes, and remind people before charging.
Who covers it
- Brignull, deceptive.design: Hidden subscription
- Gray et al., CHI 2018: Sneaking: forced continuity
- Mathur et al., CSCW 2019: Sneaking: hidden subscription
- Gray et al., CHI 2024 ontology: Forced action: forced continuity
- US FTC staff report, 2022: Design elements that lead to unauthorized charges
- India CCPA Guidelines, 2023: Subscription trap, and SaaS billing
- OECD, 2022: Sneaking
See it on: Checkout, Deon+
Buried renewal terms
The part about recurring charges is on the page, in tiny or pale text, away from the button. Attention goes to big, bright things. Small grey text reads as boilerplate, so the cost goes unread.
The honest version. Put the price, the billing period and how to cancel next to the button, at normal size and full contrast.
Who covers it
- Brignull, deceptive.design: Hidden subscription
- Gray et al., CHI 2018: Interface interference: hidden information
- Mathur et al., CSCW 2019: Sneaking: hidden subscription
- Gray et al., CHI 2024 ontology: Interface interference: hidden information
- US FTC staff report, 2022: Design elements that hide or delay disclosure of material information
- India CCPA Guidelines, 2023: Subscription trap, and SaaS billing
- WCAG 2.2, 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum): Text needs a contrast ratio of at least 4.5 to 1 against its background. The pale text here does not reach it.
See it on: Checkout, Deon+, Lab 06
Interface interference: the layout does the persuading
Size, colour, wording and defaults arranged so that one answer is easy and the other is work.
Lopsided consent choice
Accepting is a big bright button. Rejecting is small grey text that barely looks clickable. People take the option that is easiest to see and to hit, most of all when a banner stands between them and the page.
The honest version. Accept and Reject sit side by side with the same size, colour and weight.
Who covers it
- Brignull, deceptive.design: Visual interference
- Gray et al., CHI 2018: Interface interference: false hierarchy
- Mathur et al., CSCW 2019: Misdirection: visual interference
- Gray et al., CHI 2024 ontology: Interface interference: manipulating choice architecture
- US FTC staff report, 2022: Design elements that obscure or subvert privacy choices
- EU Digital Services Act, Article 25: Paragraph 3(a): giving more prominence to certain choices
- EDPB Guidelines 03/2022: Stirring: hidden in plain sight
- California CCPA regulations §7004: Symmetry in choice
- OECD, 2022: Interface interference
- WCAG 2.2, 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum): Text needs a contrast ratio of at least 4.5 to 1 against its background. The pale text here does not reach it.
- WCAG 2.2, 2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum): Targets need to be at least 24 by 24 CSS pixels, with some exceptions. A tiny stand-alone link can fail this.
See it on: Home, Lab 07
No “no” on the first screen
The first screen offers to accept everything or to manage options. Saying no takes extra screens; saying yes takes one click. Every extra step loses people. Most take the short path even when they would rather refuse.
The honest version. Reject all is on the first screen, next to Accept all, and works in one click.
Who covers it
- Brignull, deceptive.design: Obstruction
- Gray et al., CHI 2018: Obstruction
- Gray et al., CHI 2024 ontology: Obstruction: adding steps
- US FTC staff report, 2022: Design elements that obscure or subvert privacy choices
- EDPB Guidelines 03/2022: Obstructing: longer than necessary
- California CCPA regulations §7004: Symmetry in choice: the privacy-protective path must not be longer than the other one
- OECD, 2022: Obstruction
See it on: Lab 08
Lopsided choice
The option the company prefers is big, bright and often already selected. The other is small, pale, or tucked into a sentence. People follow visual weight. The loud option reads as the normal one and the quiet one as a mistake.
The honest version. Give the options the same size, colour and position, with nothing selected for you.
Who covers it
- Brignull, deceptive.design: Visual interference
- Gray et al., CHI 2018: Interface interference: false hierarchy
- Mathur et al., CSCW 2019: Misdirection: visual interference, and pressured selling
- Gray et al., CHI 2024 ontology: Interface interference: manipulating choice architecture
- EU Digital Services Act, Article 25: Paragraph 3(a): giving more prominence to certain choices
- OECD, 2022: Interface interference
- WCAG 2.2, 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum): Text needs a contrast ratio of at least 4.5 to 1 against its background. The pale text here does not reach it.
See it on: Deon+, Cancel
Trick question
The checkbox label stacks negatives until you cannot tell whether a tick means yes or no. People skim forms and expect a tick to mean the usual thing. Confusing wording turns a guess into consent.
The honest version. One plain sentence, no negatives, and an empty box, such as “Email me offers from partners.”
Who covers it
- Brignull, deceptive.design: Trick wording
- Gray et al., CHI 2018: Interface interference: trick questions
- Mathur et al., CSCW 2019: Misdirection: trick questions
- Gray et al., CHI 2024 ontology: Interface interference: trick questions
- EDPB Guidelines 03/2022: Left in the dark: ambiguous wording or information
- California CCPA regulations §7004: Confusing language, such as double negatives, is to be avoided
- India CCPA Guidelines, 2023: Trick question
- OECD, 2022: Interface interference
See it on: Checkout
Confirmshaming
The “no” option is worded to make you feel cheap, careless or foolish for choosing it. Nobody likes to click on an insult about themselves. Guilt and shame push people toward yes.
The honest version. The decline option says “No thanks”, with the same weight as the accept option.
Who covers it
- Brignull, deceptive.design: Confirmshaming
- Gray et al., CHI 2018: Interface interference: toying with emotion
- Mathur et al., CSCW 2019: Misdirection: confirmshaming
- Gray et al., CHI 2024 ontology: Social engineering: shaming
- EDPB Guidelines 03/2022: Stirring: emotional steering
- California CCPA regulations §7004: Wording that guilts or shames people into a choice is among the things to avoid
- India CCPA Guidelines, 2023: Confirm shaming
- OECD, 2022: Interface interference
See it on: Home, Cancel, Lab 02
Comparison prevention
Each option is described in different units and priced in a different way, so you cannot line them up. Comparing takes effort. When it takes too much, people give up and pick whatever is highlighted.
The honest version. One table, the same units for every option, the full price and the price per unit.
Who covers it
- Brignull, deceptive.design: Comparison prevention
- Gray et al., CHI 2018: Obstruction: price comparison prevention
- Gray et al., CHI 2024 ontology: Obstruction: creating barriers
- OECD, 2022: Obstruction
See it on: The Mug
Obstruction and nagging: easy in, hard out
Extra steps and repeated prompts that wear people down until they give up or give in.
Hard to cancel
Signing up took one click. Leaving takes a survey, several offers, a guilt trip and a link you have to hunt for. Each extra screen is a chance to give up. Some people will, and keep paying.
The honest version. Cancelling takes as few steps as signing up, and the button that cancels says Cancel.
Who covers it
- Brignull, deceptive.design: Hard to cancel
- Gray et al., CHI 2018: Obstruction: roach motel
- Mathur et al., CSCW 2019: Obstruction: hard to cancel
- Gray et al., CHI 2024 ontology: Obstruction: roach motel
- US FTC staff report, 2022: Design elements that lead to unauthorized charges
- EU Digital Services Act, Article 25: Paragraph 3(c): making it harder to end a service than to sign up for it
- India CCPA Guidelines, 2023: Subscription trap
- OECD, 2022: Obstruction
See it on: Cancel
Nagging
The same prompt comes back after you close it. Here it comes back a little sooner each time. Saying no again and again is tiring. Giving in once makes it stop.
The honest version. Help opens when you ask for it and stays closed when you close it.
Who covers it
- Brignull, deceptive.design: Nagging
- Gray et al., CHI 2018: Nagging
- Gray et al., CHI 2024 ontology: Forced action: nagging
- EU Digital Services Act, Article 25: Paragraph 3(b): repeatedly asking for a choice that was already made
- India CCPA Guidelines, 2023: Nagging
- OECD, 2022: Nagging
See it on: every shop page (Dee)
If you run a study here
Showing people deceptive design without telling them is itself deception. Research ethics boards treat it that way, and they are right to.
- Get approval first from whoever oversees research with people where you work.
- Debrief every participant. The Receipt is built for that: it shows each person what happened to them and why. X-ray shows how.
- Use the fair twins as your comparison. They change the trick and nothing else.
- Collect only what you need. Deon keeps nothing and sends nothing. If you record sessions, that is your recording, under your rules.
The other half: Cepti
Deon is the attack. Cepti is the defence: a browser add-on from the same practice that spots these patterns on real pages, explains them in plain words, and offers a one-click fix. It works fully on your device. Deon's Lab is where it gets tested.
Sources
The pattern names and groupings on this site follow these sources, and only these.
- Harry Brignull, deceptive.design (formerly darkpatterns.org). Coined “dark patterns” in 2010. www.deceptive.design
- Gray, Kou, Battles, Hoggatt, Toombs. The Dark (Patterns) Side of UX Design. CHI 2018. Five strategies: nagging, obstruction, sneaking, interface interference, forced action.
- Mathur et al. Dark Patterns at Scale: Findings from a Crawl of 11K Shopping Websites. CSCW 2019.
- Gray, Santos, Bielova, Mildner. An Ontology of Dark Patterns Knowledge. CHI 2024.
- US Federal Trade Commission staff report, Bringing Dark Patterns to Light, September 2022.
- EU Digital Services Act, Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, Article 25. It applies to online platforms.
- European Data Protection Board, Guidelines 03/2022 on deceptive design patterns in social media platform interfaces.
- California CCPA regulations §7004, and the CPRA definition of “dark pattern”. They cover privacy requests and consent.
- India, Central Consumer Protection Authority, Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023.
- OECD, Dark commercial patterns, Digital Economy Papers No. 336, 2022.
- W3C, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/