By Dr. Wan Khatina Nawawi
Some choices are not made. They are assumed. And some exits are there, but only in theory.
In many markets today, consumers are offered more choices than ever. But choice is not only about what options are available. It is also about how those options are presented. Design plays a quiet but powerful role in shaping decisions. Through default settings, cancellation flows, and other subtle cues, businesses can influence whether consumers stay, switch, or walk away.
This final article in the Design and Manipulation series examines defaults and dark exits. These design techniques are not new, but they have taken new forms in digital markets. They operate not by denying choice, but by shaping it quietly, often without the user noticing.
Defaults do the deciding for you
Defaults are pre-set options that apply unless the user acts. They are not new. In traditional settings, insurance forms often came with pre-selected add-ons. Gym contracts might automatically renew unless cancelled in writing. In these cases, the default was the outcome applied through silence.
In the digital environment, defaults are more widespread and more powerful. Pre-ticked boxes, auto-renewals, and suggested options are now standard interface features. Common examples include:
- Automatically enrolling users in promotional emails
- Pre-selecting express delivery or more expensive plans
- Auto-renewing free trials into paid subscriptions without notice
These design choices exploit status quo bias, where consumers tend to stick with existing settings. While some defaults can simplify decisions or reflect likely preferences, others serve primarily to benefit the business, not the user.
A notable case involves the UK CMA’s enforcement against auto-renewal practices in online console video gaming. In 2022, it secured changes from Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo after finding that consumers were being defaulted into long-term subscriptions without clear notice. The companies agreed to make auto-renewal settings more transparent and offer better cancellation terms. This showed how default settings can create commercial advantage unless actively addressed.
The exit exists, but often feels out of reach
Dark exits refer to design patterns that make it difficult for users to cancel, unsubscribe, or switch. Like defaults, these practices are not unique to digital markets. In fact, some of their oldest forms come from offline sectors.
Think of timeshare agreements that require long notice periods and penalties, or gym memberships that can only be cancelled in person with a manager’s signature. These are not bugs. They are features, part of designs that introduce friction to discourage exit.
In the digital economy, this friction is now engineered more precisely. Common examples include:
- Subscription services that require multiple clicks to cancel
- Unsubscribe links that redirect users to login pages or ask unrelated questions
- Interfaces that use emotional prompts such as “Are you sure you want to leave us?”
These digital exit barriers are not hypothetical. One of the most well-known examples involves Amazon’s Prime subscription service, which has faced regulatory scrutiny in both Europe and the US.
In 2022, following a complaint by the Norwegian Consumer Council, Amazon agreed to simplify its Prime cancellation process across Europe. Previously, users had to navigate several pages filled with distractions and repeated prompts. Under pressure from the European Commission and national authorities, Amazon committed to a two-click cancellation flow with clear labelling, in line with the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.
In 2023, The US Federal Trade Commission (US FTC) filed a separate complaint against Amazon, alleging that its so-called “Iliad” flow was designed to delay and deter cancellation. The process involved multiple steps and confusing language, raising concerns about whether the design was intentionally used to suppress user choice.
In traditional markets, similar complaints have led to regulatory responses. In Australia, gym and fitness contracts are now subject to state-level rules requiring transparency on cancellation. Meanwhile, in the US, the US FTC advises consumers to report on any subscriptions that they never ordered. Finally, under the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, inertia selling, situations where silence is treated as consent, is prohibited.
How defaults and dark exits shape competition
Defaults and dark exits do not only affect individual consumers. They also affect how markets function. At scale, they reduce switching, dull competitive pressure, and raise barriers to entry.
For example:
- A video streaming platform that auto-renews subscriptions and makes cancellation difficult may retain more users, even if a better competitor exists
- A dominant online marketplace that pre-selects its own branded products in search results may reduce visibility for rival sellers, limiting consumer choice and distorting fair competition
- A firm that makes “unsubscription” harder than sign-up can create artificial lock-in
These concerns are increasingly appearing in competition assessments. The UK CMA, in its 2022 Online Choice Architecture discussion paper, warned that asymmetries in entry and exit flows reduce contestability.
Even in traditional markets, such as banking or telecoms, competition authorities have recognised how inertia and switching costs can limit effective competition. In the 2017 UK retail banking market investigation, the UK CMA introduced remedies to make it easier to switch accounts, after finding that legacy banks benefited from customer inaction.
These effects are not limited to dominant firms. If many providers in a sector adopt similar practices, switching becomes difficult across the board. Consumers give up, and new entrants find it hard to build a user base.
A shared challenge for regulators and businesses
For regulators, defaults and dark exits raise overlapping concerns under consumer protection, data privacy, and competition law. But separating these domains can be misleading. A practice that appears minor from a consumer perspective may have wider market implications when used at scale.
This calls for a coordinated approach among the regulatory and competition authorities:
- Consumer protection agencies should assess whether design interferes with informed consent and fair treatment
- Competition authorities should examine whether design features raise barriers to switching or distort demand
- Data protection regulators should monitor how defaults affect user control over personal data
For businesses, the key is to understand that fair design is no longer optional. It is not just a regulatory expectation, but also a commercial responsibility. Firms that design for clarity, consent and ease of exit are not only reducing legal risk, but they are also helping to build more open and trustworthy markets. While this may mean giving up short-term revenue from friction or inertia, it also creates long-term value through consumer loyalty, reputational credibility and stronger alignment with evolving regulatory standards.
Building better defaults and honest exits
Whether digital or offline, design choices for defaults and exits should follow some best practice principles. The 2022 OECD Digital Paper on Dark Commercial Patterns highlighted some of these, which include:
- Transparency over pre-selection: Default options should be clearly labelled, easy to change, and consistent with consumer interest. Hidden or hard-to-undo defaults can mislead users and trigger enforcement
- Symmetry of process: If sign-up takes two clicks, cancellation should not take twenty. Entry and exit paths should be designed with similar ease and clarity
- Friction must be justifiable: Some steps, like identity checks or security verifications, are necessary. But additional friction should not be introduced solely to retain users or slow down cancellation
- Testing and review: Firms should regularly test their interfaces, both online and in-person, to understand whether users are making informed and voluntary choices. Behavioural audits can reveal where friction becomes manipulation
From insight to action
As ASEAN deepens its digital economy, there is a growing opportunity to get ahead of these design concerns. Local enforcement may still be developing, but the global trend is clear: defaults and dark exits are now part of regulatory scrutiny.
They are also part of market dynamics. Poor design, including for defaults and exits, not only frustrates users but also distorts outcomes, weakens competition, and invites mistrust. Good design, by contrast, supports transparency, user control, and competition.
The challenge and the opportunity are to build systems where choices are real, not just visible. Where staying is not just easier than leaving, and where defaults reflect user interest, not just business advantage. That is not only a consumer right. It is also good economics.