We’re trying to raise at least $70,000 by 4 October. Why? We’re not government funded. Not backed by big business. We’re 100% independent – and we only exist because no-bullsh*t people like you support us. We’re fighting to bring down high power prices, protect people from unsafe products and ban sneaky business tactics. Please keep our fight alive by donating today.
Under New Zealand law, businesses aren’t allowed to lie to us. But what happens when they don’t tell an outright lie – they simply design the experience to make us more likely to spend, subscribe, give up our information or give up trying to cancel?
Here are 10 dark patterns we’ve found being used online – and how the current law deals with them.
On this page
- 1. Subscription traps
- 2. Sneaking something into your cart
- 3. Hidden fees
- 4. ‘Only two left!‘
- 5. ‘Someone in Hamilton just bought this!‘
- 6. Making one choice very, very easy to click
- 7. The data grab
- 8. Disguised ads
- 9. Nagging and ‘confirmshaming’
- 10. Forced action
- The problem with ‘technically legal’
- What we can learn from Australia
1. Subscription traps
The trick: A business might make its “join” button impossible to miss, while the cancellation option is buried deep in your account settings, requires a phone call or sends you around in circles.
Is it legal? Often, yes.
There’s no specific law saying cancelling a subscription must be as easy as signing up for it. Unfair contract-term rules may apply to some subscription terms, and sufficiently extreme behaviour could potentially fall foul of prohibitions on misleading or unconscionable conduct. But simply making the cancellation process irritating or time-consuming isn’t automatically unlawful.
That leaves a sizeable gap. Around one-quarter of the New Zealanders in our research said dark patterns had kept them subscribed longer than they wanted.
Australia has done more to protect consumers in this regard. From July 2027, its new unfair-trading laws will specifically require businesses offering subscriptions to provide a clear, straightforward way to cancel.
2. Sneaking something into your cart
The trick: You think you’re buying one thing. Somewhere along the way, you’ve also agreed to a membership, subscription or add-on.
Is it legal? No, not if you’re misled about what you’re agreeing to.
In 2024, the Commerce Commission warned Dick Smith after its website used a pre-selected box that signed eligible customers up for a 14-day trial of its FIRST membership. Unless shoppers noticed and unticked the box, the trial could turn into a $149 annual or $14.99 monthly subscription. The Commission considered the process likely to mislead consumers and therefore likely to breach the Fair Trading Act.
In 2025, HelloFresh was fined $845,000 over a different subscription practice: former customers were offered discount vouchers during phone calls without it being made sufficiently clear that accepting them could reactivate their cancelled subscriptions.
3. Hidden fees
The trick: The price starts at $79. By the time you reach “pay now”, you’ve collected a “service fee” or “booking fee”, and the new total is $94.99.
Is it legal? Sometimes.
New Zealand businesses aren’t banned from charging additional fees, but they can’t give you a misleading impression of the real price.
Hidden costs or leaving out important pricing information can amount to misleading conduct under the Fair Trading Act. The Commerce Commission says consumers who see an advertised price are generally entitled to assume it’s the full price they’ll pay, and surcharges must be disclosed before purchase.
So the fee itself may be legitimate. Making you think the product costs substantially less until you’re already halfway through the checkout may not be.
4. ‘Only two left!‘
The trick: Scarcity messages create the feeling that unless you act immediately, you’ll miss out.
Is it legal? Only if it’s genuine scarcity.
In 2022, online retailer 1-Day was fined $840,000 over misleading claims about the duration of deals and the amount of stock remaining. Its site was programmed to make stock appear to reduce over the course of the day, even when plenty remained.
The Fair Trading Act doesn’t stop businesses creating urgency, but it does stop them using claims that aren’t true.
5. ‘Someone in Hamilton just bought this!‘
The trick: A little notification appears, telling you that Hannah in Christchurch just snapped up the product you’re considering. Better move quickly!
Is it legal? Only if it’s real information.
These are known as activity notifications or “social proof”. If Hannah really did buy one, that fact can legitimately be displayed, but a fictional Hannah is another story.
In 2022, the Commerce Commission warned online retailer Occasion Box after its website displayed pop-ups purporting to show purchases by “verified” customers around New Zealand. The shoppers were fictional and the purchases hadn’t happened.
6. Making one choice very, very easy to click
The trick: One button is huge, bright and inviting: ACCEPT EVERYTHING! The alternative is a pale-grey “manage preferences” link lurking somewhere near the footer.
Is it legal? Often, yes.
This is known as a “false hierarchy” – using colour, size or placement to steer you towards the option the business would prefer you to choose – and it’s one of the clearest examples of the gap in our existing consumer law.
There’s no specific rule requiring businesses to give competing choices equal visual weight. If the design actually misleads you about what you’re agreeing to, the Fair Trading Act may apply. And if it’s being used to obtain personal information, privacy law may also come into play.
But manipulative design doesn’t automatically become illegal simply because it has successfully nudged you towards the less consumer-friendly option.
7. The data grab
The trick: You’re trying to do something straightforward, but suddenly the site wants your date of birth, phone number and address before it’ll let you continue.
Is it legal? Only if the business legitimately needs that information.
Under the Privacy Act, organisations should only collect personal information when it’s necessary for a lawful purpose connected with what they do. The way it’s collected must also be fair and must not intrude unreasonably into someone’s personal affairs.
That matters when one in four New Zealanders in our research said a dark pattern had caused them to hand over more information than they were comfortable with.
Since May 2026, there have also been new notification obligations where organisations obtain personal information indirectly, rather than from you.
8. Disguised ads
The trick: Something looks like an article, recommendation or ordinary piece of content – but it’s actually paid advertising.
Is it legal? Yes, if the ad is labelled with wording like “advertisement” or “sponsored content” or it’s obvious from the context that it’s an ad.
The Advertising Standards Code requires advertisements to be identifiable as ads. Advertiser-controlled content shouldn’t be disguised as something else, and this applies to things like native advertising, advertorials and influencer content.
The Fair Trading Act can also apply if the overall impression created is misleading.
So businesses can make advertising blend into its surroundings, but they shouldn’t make you work out only afterwards that you were looking at an ad.
9. Nagging and ‘confirmshaming’
The trick: “Are you sure you don’t want 20% off?” “Really?” “But everybody loves savings!” Or perhaps the button for declining an offer says something like: “No thanks, I prefer paying full price.”
Is it legal? Usually.
There are laws covering particular kinds of selling, such as door-to-door selling, and seriously exploitative conduct could potentially cross the unconscionable-conduct threshold. But there’s no prohibition on a website being pushy, annoying or emotionally manipulative.
10. Forced action
The trick: Before you can perform the task you actually came for, you have to do something the business wants – create an account, complete a survey, provide information or make another choice.
Is it legal? It depends on what you’re being forced to do.
Requiring you to create an account before using a service isn’t inherently against the law. But if the process misleads you into agreeing to something or forces unnecessary collection of personal information, existing Fair Trading Act or Privacy Act rules may apply.
The missing piece is a broader rule capable of dealing with the design itself when it manipulates people without necessarily making a false statement.
The problem with ‘technically legal’
New Zealand does already have a range of consumer protections. Businesses can’t engage in misleading or deceptive conduct, and since 2022, the Fair Trading Act has expressly prohibited unconscionable conduct. Standard-form consumer contracts are also subject to unfair-contract-term rules.
But none of those is a general prohibition on treating consumers unfairly.
That matters because modern digital tactics can exploit how people make decisions without ever needing to tell an obvious lie.
As Consumer NZ senior legal and policy advisor Aneleise Gawn puts it: “Consumers shouldn’t have to navigate a maze of tricks and obstacles when making straightforward choices online. Businesses should compete by offering better products and services, not by manipulating people into spending more money or giving away more personal information. New Zealand consumers need stronger protections.”
What we can learn from Australia
Australia faced a similar gap in its consumer laws. In July this year, its Parliament passed sweeping new unfair-trading legislation.
From 1 July 2027, Australian law will prohibit business conduct that unreasonably manipulates consumers or distorts the environment in which they make decisions and causes detriment. The reforms also specifically target subscription traps and hidden transaction fees.
New Zealand’s own Fair Trading Amendment Bill is currently before the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It would modernise enforcement, substantially strengthen penalties and make other changes to the existing Act. But it does not introduce the broader unfair-trading prohibition Consumer NZ wants.
“We support the steeper penalties and enforcement changes to stop corporate exploitation, but New Zealand should follow Australia’s example and ban unfair trading practices,” says Gawn.
“We think the current bill should only be viewed as a first stage of wider reform rather than a complete modernisation, as it still leaves New Zealanders exposed to modern commercial exploitation.”
