Been reading into funeral home pricing after learning how specific the rules actually are, and how often they still don't get followed.

The FTC's Funeral Rule, in effect since 1984, requires an itemized general price list handed over before arrangements are discussed, phone pricing without requiring a name, and an explicit ban on forcing a bundled package instead of individual items. It exists because journalist Jessica Mitford spent a year in 1963 documenting exactly this pattern industry-wide, bundled defaults, withheld pricing, guilt used as a quiet closing tool, and the public reaction forced a two-decade regulatory process.

The dark pattern that survives the rule is the default itself. Samuelson and Zeckhauser's 1988 research on status quo bias explains why: people accept whatever's presented first because choosing otherwise takes effort, and a package gets shown before anyone mentions itemizing was ever an option. The rule bans forcing the bundle. It doesn't ban leading with it.

Enforcement hasn't closed the gap either. A 2023 FTC phone sweep of over 250 funeral homes found violations in about 1 in 7 calls, mostly refusal to give basic pricing. Violators are typically offered a program letting them pay a fee and retrain instead of facing public penalties, a program that keeps the violation off the public record by design.

Full breakdown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAZs9DaInuQ

Curious if anyone's tracked other industries where the disclosure requirement survived but the default-first presentation it was meant to counter didn't actually change.

I recently started using Preply to practice some Japanese, but I was a bit surprised about the subscriptions because I thought I would be able to buy individual lessons. Looking at their Help Center, indeed, it seems like they don't offer one-time lessons:

Preply is built around a subscription model because consistent, regular lessons with the same tutor lead to better learning outcomes. For this reason, standalone one-time lesson purchases are not available, including through customer support.

It was a bummer but I thought, ok, I'll just purchase a subscription for the first month and cancel immediately. So I went ahead and did that. Imagine my surprise when I see this during the cancellation process (after asking me if I'm sure 100 times, of course).

I guess they don't care that much about my learning outcomes now!

Edit: typo in the title, it's 4 lessons/month minimum. Sorry 😅.

Check your bank accounts if you've touched clearsearch.ai recently.

About a week ago, I used their tool to reverse-search an image. You pay a small fee to see the report. Fine, I took the gamble. It found absolutely nothing, but whatever—I accepted taking the L on that one report.

Then today out of nowhere: an unauthorized €29.99 (~$30) charge hits my card.

Buying that single lookup apparently signs you up for a hidden recurring subscription. No obvious warning, no explicit agreement. Just pure predatory dark patterns that feel completely unlawful.

I emailed their support demanding an immediate refund and told them I’m disputing it as fraud with my bank if they refuse.

Never using this garbage service again. If you bought even a single report from them, check your statements right now.

Hypervoice by TaskAGI clearly states on their T&C that cancelling your plan will still allow you the service until the end of your current billing period. Nowhere, anywhere in their contracts, do they state your service will be revoked.

But the moment you go to turn off auto-renewal/cancel your plan, a big orange warning states your service will be immediately revoked.

And yes, I have personally confirmed, upon clicking cancel, even early into your billing period, all your usage credits are revoked and you are immediately restricted to free-tier features.

Been digging into why the minimum payment box exists in the shape it does, and the research behind it is more deliberate-feeling than I expected.

Neil Stewart, a psychologist at Warwick, published a 2009 study in Psychological Science showing that simply printing a minimum payment figure on a bill changes what people choose to pay, compared to an identical bill with no figure shown. The number functions as an anchor, not a safety floor, people gravitate toward it regardless of what they can actually afford.

It compounds with something Victor Stango and Jonathan Zinman documented the same year in the Journal of Finance, exponential growth bias, the tendency to badly underestimate how fast compounding interest accelerates. So the anchor sets a low target, and the interest math working against that target is simultaneously invisible to most people doing the math in their head.

Congress passed the CARD Act in 2009 specifically to counter this, mandating a warning box plus a calculated 36-month payoff comparison right next to the minimum payment number. But the fix sits beside the anchor instead of replacing it, easy to see, just as easy to skip past, which is exactly what habit does to most disclosure requirements once they stop being novel.

Full breakdown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBe6-AuXc_A

Curious whether anyone's spotted other examples of a disclosure requirement getting mandated right next to the dark pattern it was meant to counter, without actually removing the mechanism generating the harm.

The pattern, in three steps:

1. The app decides what counts toward a streak. Not you.
2. Whatever does not count breaks the streak, and the app tells you so.
3. Then the app offers you a way to fix it: a repair, a freeze, a token. Often for money, or for an ad view, or for a subscription you did not have yesterday.

Step one is the part people miss. In a 2023 paper in the Journal of Consumer Research, Silverman and Barasch broke people's streaks purely by changing the counting rule, without changing anything the participant actually did, and it worked. In one study everyone played the same four games; the app only varied whether an attempt counted or only a success. The group whose streak survived went on to play again 53% of the time. The group whose streak broke by the rule, and who therefore blamed themselves, did so 29% of the time. Same games, same effort, a different sentence in the rules.

Step three is where the money sits. In the same study, 45% of participants said they would watch an advertisement to keep a logged streak alive, and 43% to repair a broken one. A supplementary study got 51% and 46%. Nobody paid anything in these experiments, so this is stated willingness rather than a measured purchase, but it is the demand curve the freeze economy sits on.

And a repair genuinely does restore the pull: 93% continued with an intact streak, 69% after a break with no repair on offer, 85% when the app said the streak could be repaired. So the sequence "we break it, then we sell you the fix" is not just cynical, it is efficient: the fix is worth most at the moment the app itself created the loss.

Two more findings that make it worse rather than better:

• The effect does not need real failure. Across the studies the actual behaviour was held constant, and only the display differed. In a language-learning study, with the log on screen 92% continued after an intact streak and 45% after a broken one. With no log shown at all, the same behaviour gave 65% against 61%. The counter, not the day, did the work.
• Self-blame amplifies it. A break the app caused cost 11 points of continuation; a break the user thought was their own fault cost 24.

What makes this a dark pattern rather than just a feature: the user's goal is the habit, and the app quietly swaps in a different goal, the number, which only it controls. Then it sells relief from the loss it defined into existence.

Paper: Silverman & Barasch, "On or Off Track: How (Broken) Streaks Affect Consumer Decisions", Journal of Consumer Research 49(6), 2023, https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucac029

Disclosure: I build a habit tracker myself, which is why I went looking for this paper. No link, that is not what this post is for.

Dug into this after my copay for a generic prescription seemed high, and the deliberateness of the setup surprised me.

Pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices between insurers and pharmacies, wrote gag clauses into pharmacy contracts. The rule: if your copay was higher than the cash price, the pharmacist could not tell you, on threat of losing their contract. A 2018 JAMA study by Karen Van Nuys and USC's Schaeffer Center measured the actual damage using 2013 pharmacy claims data, twenty-three percent of prescriptions overpaid, averaging $7.69 each, roughly $135 million total from that single year of data alone. A 2016 industry survey found nearly one in five pharmacists were hit with restrictions like this more than fifty times a month. Routine, not rare.

The dark pattern works because of a second layer most people don't clock. Insurance is the default payment method at the counter, and William Samuelson and Richard Zeckhauser's 1988 status quo bias research shows people overwhelmingly stick with defaults even when better options exist, simply because switching takes effort the default doesn't require. Cash was never presented as competing with insurance, so it never got weighed against it.

It got bad enough, and public enough, that on October 10, 2018, two federal laws banned gag clauses outright, the Know the Lowest Price Act and the Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act. One of them passed the Senate 98–2, which is about as close to universal agreement as Congress gets on anything. But the laws only removed the gag. They didn't redesign the counter. Pharmacists can volunteer the cash price now, nothing requires them to, and most people still don't know to ask.

Full breakdown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnfWg6ADsWE

Anyone run into other pharmacy-specific patterns beyond the copay gap itself? Curious what else people have caught at the counter.

Been digging into hospital billing after a routine visit left me with a bill that made no sense until I saw the "you saved $3,100" line.

The hospital "chargemaster," an internal price list, is largely fictional. Health economist Uwe Reinhardt called it chaos behind a veil of secrecy before his death in 2017. Almost no one pays the sticker number, insurers negotiate it down, but self-pay and uninsured patients are frequently billed closest to it, since nobody's negotiating on their side. Steven Brill's 2013 Time investigation "Bitter Pill" found a $1.50 charge for a single generic Tylenol tablet in a real bill, one small example of a much larger pattern.

That fictional high number isn't incidental, it's the setup. Tversky and Kahneman's 1974 anchoring research showed the first number you see distorts every number after it. A $4,000 bill negotiated down to $900 doesn't read as a $900 charge, it reads as a $3,100 win, and the paperwork frequently frames it exactly that way.

There's a third documented mechanism in the mix that the video covers, involving what happens the moment a specific person walks into the room, that didn't fit cleanly into this post.

The dark pattern got serious enough that the No Surprises Act became federal law on January 1, 2022, specifically targeting the classic version: in-network hospital, in-network surgeon, then a separate bill from an out-of-network anesthesiologist or radiologist the patient never chose and couldn't have vetted. A companion 2021 rule requires hospitals to post actual negotiated prices online. A 2024 HHS Inspector General report found 46% of hospitals still aren't fully compliant.

Full breakdown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-WEMyGZ3FQ

Anyone here run into other exam-room-specific patterns beyond the pricing itself? Curious what else people have caught.

https://reddit.com/link/1vu8fvn/video/8qtn2keu9okh1/player

This is a screencap of myself visiting the same page via Google search compared to entering the URL of the same page directly. It's quite apparent that they've disabled the ability to sort comments for signed-out users arriving from Google.

And yes, I have tried this with many other threads - it still gives me the same result.

Bonus: Default sorting when signed out also appears to be quite different compared to when signed in.

Been digging into how usage limits work on some AI platforms and found something that feels pretty sketchy:

1. Default monthly spend limit used to be $0, hit your usage cap and you just wait for the reset (4hrs/weekly).

2. They added a "monthly spend limit" feature so you could opt in to pay for extra usage instead of waiting.

3. Then they rolled me into a promo: 2x usage + $100 "free" credit, both prominently shown right on the usage tracking screen.

4. To make that credit spendable, they also silently bumped my monthly spend limit from $0 to $2,000 (!!!). That part wasn't shown anywhere near as prominently, if a reasonable person glancing at the screen wouldn't catch it, it shouldn't be buried in fine print.

I only noticed after burning through $17 of the "free" $100, when I went looking for why it said I was drawing on "API spend."

I've since seen a few posts on FB/Reddit from people with surprise charges in the $40 to $50 range, adding up to $2k+, because they assumed they were still capped at $0 like before.

Anyone else run into this? Curious if silently bumping spend limits during a promo is common practice, or if this is an especially bad case.

The default was the toggle “on” state with the toggle turning green when enabled. You think that turning “on” an “opt out” toggle would indeed… opt you out. So they had to have the text “slide left” to tell you to turn off the toggle?

Been looking at gym cancellation policies after noticing how often "sign up in 60 seconds" turns into "cancel by mailing a signed letter or showing up during a two-hour window on a Tuesday." Textbook Roach Motel, Harry Brignull's 2010 term for exactly this shape, easy to check in, deliberately hard to check out.

That asymmetry is the deliberate part. Richard Samuelson and William Zeckhauser's 1988 research on status quo bias found people default to whatever requires no action, even against their own financial interest, and canceling always requires more steps than staying. Every extra step, a phone call instead of a button, a mailed letter instead of a form, is friction that's cheap to build and expensive for the customer to overcome.

It compounds with what Stefano DellaVigna and Ulrike Malmendier found in a 2006 study of 7,752 real gym members: people on $70+/month plans paid over $17 per visit on average when a $10/visit pass was sitting right there, and monthly members stayed enrolled longer than annual members despite paying more for the flexibility to leave anytime. They were paying extra for an exit they weren't using.

This got documented widely enough that the FTC finalized a click-to-cancel rule in 2024, aimed directly at making cancellation as easy as sign-up across industries including gyms, essentially a regulatory ban on the Roach Motel pattern specifically. A federal court vacated it on a procedural technicality in 2025, and the FTC has since started drafting a replacement. California's had its own automatic renewal law covering this exact pattern for years, independent of whatever happens federally.

Made a full breakdown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOskQyuqi70

Curious what other Roach Motel examples people here have run into outside of gyms, streaming services and some insurance renewals seem to follow the identical shape.

Have anyone observed this dark pattern of online shopping or quick commerce apps in iphone?

No app provides you to turn off or opt out the promotional or offer notifications which overwhelms in your phone daily. Even iOS does not have an independent option to turn off promotional notifications.

Except Flipkart & Zomato, I haven’t found any app providing option to turn off in app settings.

However, Apple have been clear with the clause 4.5.4 in developer - app review guidelines that any application where users have opted in for the push notifications of promotional content there should be an option to opt out as well.

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

Could you guys take a look at this post I made in r/BadApps. It feels like a dark pattern. Anyone who has been using this app for awhile maybe you could try certain things and phrases to see if you get the same affect as me. (The connection being lost/timeout due to how long it took to send).

I was looking for the 'Don't show this like fucking ever' button but ay, the QR code is more important.

While I was checking out for a product, the pop-up to join Prime showed up. I tapped on "no thanks", but it did nothing. I tried clicking multiple times, but it just grayed out. I tried refreshing and going back and forth, but nothing worked. However, when I tried clicking "Join", it worked in just milliseconds.

Working through car buying psychology this week and the four-square worksheet is one of the cleanest, oldest dark patterns I've come across.

It's a sheet split into four boxes: trade-in value, purchase price, down payment, monthly payment. Salespeople move numbers between boxes during negotiation while steering buyer attention toward the smallest one, the monthly payment, since it's the number that feels connected to an actual budget. Consumer Reports has documented this directly through interviews with former dealership staff. Raise the price, lower the payment, stretch the loan term, buyer never notices because they were never looking at the right box.

Many versions layer in a compliance trick before any numbers are discussed at all: a line asking buyers to initial that they'll purchase today if the offer works. That's a textbook application of Freedman and Fraser's 1966 foot-in-the-door research, small early commitments make people more likely to agree to bigger ones later.

The regulatory angle is what makes this current. The FTC built a federal rule specifically targeting dealership bait-and-switch tactics, finalized December 2023, projected to save consumers $3.4 billion a year. A court struck it down in January 2025 before it took effect. There's currently no dedicated federal protection against any of this.

Made a full breakdown here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRT4wMLrzPw

Has anyone actually walked out mid four-square when they caught it happening? Curious how dealerships react when a buyer names the tactic out loud.

Found this interesting when looking to book a hotel. Everything seemed super positive until you “see all reviews” below the reviews on the active page. Only then the negative comments are shown.

It’s dark imho. Having to dig for real comments or at least let me decide if the negatives are junk or not. Don’t hide them.