The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dark Patterns after the GDPR: Scraping Consent Pop-ups and Demonstrating their Influence
Open accessAbstract
New consent management platforms (CMPs) have been introduced to the web to conform with the EU's General Data Protection Regulation, particularly its requirements for consent when companies collect and process users' personal data. This work analyses how the most prevalent CMP designs affect people's consent choices. We scraped the designs of the five most popular CMPs on the top 10,000 websites in the UK (n=680). We found that dark patterns and implied consent are ubiquitous; only 11.8% meet our minimal requirements based on European law. Second, we conducted a field experiment with 40 participants to investigate how the eight most common designs affect consent choices. We found that notification style (banner or barrier) has no effect; removing the opt-out button from the first page increases consent by 22-23 percentage points; and providing more granular controls on the first page decreases consent by 8-20 percentage points. This study provides an empirical basis for the necessary regulatory action to enforce the GDPR, in particular the possibility of focusing on the centralised, third-party CMP services as an effective way to increase compliance.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A behavior model for persuasive design
Fogg, B. (2009) · Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology · doi:10.1145/1541948.1541999 · Cited by 2,328
Privacy and rationality in individual decision making
Acquisti, A., & Grossklags, J. (2005) · IEEE Security and Privacy Magazine · doi:10.1109/msp.2005.22 · Cited by 1,123
A Contextual Approach to Privacy Online
Nissenbaum, H. (2011) · Daedalus · doi:10.1162/daed_a_00113 · Cited by 649
Cited by
Citizens Versus the Internet: Confronting Digital Challenges With Cognitive Tools
Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2020) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100620946707 · Cited by 479
How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online
Lorenz-Spreen, P., Lewandowsky, S., Sunstein, C. R., & Hertwig, R. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0889-7 · Cited by 223
Gray, C. M., Santos, C. T., Bielova, N., & Mildner, T. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642436 · Cited by 121
Yes: Affirmative Consent as a Theoretical Framework for Understanding and Imagining Social Platforms
Im, J., Dimond, J., Berton, M., Lee, U., Mustelier, K., Ackerman, M. S., & Gilbert, E. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445778 · Cited by 119
Fosch-Villaronga, E., van der Hof, S., Lutz, C., & Tamò-Larrieux, A. (2023) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01295-w · Cited by 54
“Specifically, companies have used “dark patterns” or misleading designs to obfuscate information retrieval (Gray et al. 2018; Nouwens et al. 2020).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Nouwens, M., Liccardi, I., Veale, M., Karger, D., & Kagal, L.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2020-04-21
- Pages
- 1-13
- OpenAlex
- W3000190958
- Cited by
- 494
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 146.45
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dark Patterns after the GDPR: Scraping Consent Pop-ups and Demonstrating their Influence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/3313831.3376321
- The paper
- Nouwens, M., Liccardi, I., Veale, M., Karger, D., & Kagal, L. (2020). Dark Patterns after the GDPR: Scraping Consent Pop-ups and Demonstrating their Influence. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376321
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
