• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, January 2, 2024

The Federal Trade Commission says the lead generation company Response Tree used “dark patterns” to dupe web users into providing personal information that was sold to telemarketers and other third parties.

In a complaint filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the FTC alleges that Response Tree controlled more than 50 websites such as PatriotRefi.com, AdobeDefense.com and TheRetailRewards.com that “deceptively induced” consumers to provide personal data. The company allegedly sold “millions” of leads for prices ranging from one cent to more than $100 per lead.

The agency says the websites used “dark patterns,” which it defined as a “user interface design crafted to manipulate or trick consumers into taking actions that may be against their interest or contrary to their intent.”

For instance, according to the FTC, PatriotRefi.com obtained users' information -- as well as their consent to receive marketing calls -- “through subterfuge by disguising consumers’ consent to be contacted as a request for home mortgage financing quotes.”

That website also allegedly concealed “key disclosures by presenting them in small text that was barely legible to the naked eye and hiding these disclosures behind a hyperlink,” and used disclosures with “confusing and contradictory language.”

Response Tree agreed to settle the charges by promising to avoid making robocalls or calls to numbers on the FTC's do not call registry.

While the FTC's use of the phrase “dark patterns” is relatively recent, the agency has previously said in other contexts that disclosures should be “clear and conspicuous” -- meaning they shouldn't be made in fine print.

News of the FTC's complaint against Response Tree comes as the agency is pressing to proceed with allegations that Amazon used dark patterns to dupe people signing up for Prime subscriptions and thwart cancellation attempts.

Amazon argues in that case that the allegations regarding dark patterns against it are unconstitutionally vague, and that claims regarding "manipulative" design elements implicate all marketing.