We propose a paradigm shift toward “Diligent Design”, a proactive, design-embedded regulatory model that integrates legal and technical accountability.

A call for collaboration between lawyers, policymakers, and designers. (6/6)

We also explain why existing frameworks, in data protection, consumer, and competition law, fail to address the problem effectively.

Regulators are trapped in a reactive loop of “proving harm.” (5/n)

Our review bridges that gap. We identify 5 Root Problems driving dark patterns from power asymmetry to attention-seeking business models. And 3 Layers of Harm they cause: Individuals, Markets, and Society itself. (4/n)

We reviewed 65 interdisciplinary studies across Law and HCI. The finding? Scholarship is dangerously fragmented. HCI builds taxonomies. Law assesses new/failed regulations. The two disciplines don’t speak the same language — and rarely speak to each other. (3/n)

Why is the regulation of dark patterns, manipulative interface designs that steer users into unwanted actions, still so ineffective? 🤔

Our paper systematically reviews how Law & HCI have studied dark patterns and uncovers the root causes of regulatory failure. (2/n)

3/3 Transparency requirements, opt-outs, the exception for text and data mining, and equitable remuneration for creatives are among the key issues we analysed in our response to the UK copyright & AI consultation, which has been published in GRUR International (academic.oup.com/grurint/adva...)

We hope this paper serves as a basis for a meaningful evaluation of the GDPR, and provides empirical evidence that may assist other jurisdictions in assessing the effectiveness of transplanting GDPR-inspired rules into their own data protection frameworks.

Our paper makes a three-fold contribution (1) a systematic mapping & critical analysis of the empirical evidence (2) a taxonomy of evidence for GDPR evaluation & review (3) reflections on the methodological deficits for more coordinated future research agenda. (5/n)

Particularly in recent evaluations, at least three fallacies are present: 1 binary success/failure frame, 2 disproportional focus on GAFAM & 3 overgeneralisation. (4/n)

By categorising empirical evidence into four thematic clusters—Awareness and Trust, Operational Performance, Ripple Effect, and Normative Clarity—we provides a structured, multidimensional understanding of GDPR implementation and implications. (3/n)

We have conducted a systematic review and reflection of all empirical literature on EU data protection law, including both the Directive and the GDPR, over the past 25 years (1995–2022) (2/n)

As the GDPR enters its seventh year of implementation, and with recent calls to reduce GDPR-related bureaucratic burdens, it may be the right time to re-examine the real-world impact and future direction of this landmark legislation. (1/n)

Weiwei Yi on dark monetisation design patterns in video games 🎮

Visit our website to discover more about our research: www.create.ac.uk