Dark Patterns and Addictive Design in EU Financial Services: What a New Report Found
A report published by Finance Watch, with research conducted by The Behaviouralist across Germany, Spain, Czechia, and Hungary between April and June 2026, examined dark patterns, addictive design features, and misleading influencer marketing in EU financial services. This is the first of two articles covering the report's findings. Part 1 covers dark patterns and addictive design. Part 2 covers finfluencers and the aggregate financial harm estimate.
Dark patterns: the regulatory gap
The report opens with a finding that applies across the digital economy before narrowing to financial services specifically: 97% of popular EU websites and apps deploy at least one dark pattern.
In the broader digital economy, the DSA provides the primary legal prohibition on dark patterns. The DSA does not apply to financial services providers. That exemption creates a significant gap, because financial services platforms use the same interface mechanics as any other digital product, but face a different and weaker regulatory framework when they do.
The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive covers some dark patterns, but only those on a specific blacklist. Patterns not on the list require case-by-case assessment through the courts. MiFID II, the Insurance Distribution Directive, and PRIIPs contain no explicit prohibition on dark patterns at all. They apply general principles around acting in clients' best interests and communicating fairly, but those principles have not been tested against specific dark pattern mechanics in any systematic way.
According to the report, the result is that there is currently no general prohibition of dark patterns in financial services across the EU. Whether a specific dark pattern is unlawful depends on which framework applies, which patterns are involved, and what a court decides on the facts.
Addictive design: push notifications
The report's most specific findings on addictive design concern push notifications about financial instrument price changes. The research identified 19 instances of this practice across the platforms examined in Germany, Spain, Czechia, and Hungary.
Of those 19 cases, 15, representing 79% of the total, were rated high risk. The primary reason for the high risk rating was that the notifications could not be disabled by the user.
According to the report, real-time price updates delivered via push notification, typically colour-coded red and green to indicate losses and gains, are designed to prompt immediate user engagement. Research cited in the report shows that push notifications significantly increase retail investor trading activity immediately after they are received.
The same gap applies
The DSA regulates addictive design features for the platforms it covers. It does not cover financial services. MiFID II, IDD, and PRIIPs apply general principles of fair treatment and acting in clients' best interests, but contain no explicit prohibition on features designed to drive compulsive engagement. According to the report, any enforcement claim in this area would require case-by-case legal testing across frameworks with different scopes and no established precedent for these specific mechanics.
Part 2 covers finfluencers, the channels through which much of this engagement is driven, and the aggregate estimate of financial harm to EU consumers from unfair commercial practices online.
Fairpatterns detects dark patterns and addictive design features automatically, across platforms and sectors.
Trusted by clients worldwide
Jolling de Pree
Partner at De Brauw
Name Surname
Position, Company name
