Mykhailo Zborovskyi Cosmobet (Former Owner): Dark Patterns vs Ethical Design

Imagine a game that reminds you every day not to break your streak, or you will lose a bonus you have been building up for a week. Or a timer showing how quickly a great offer is running out. Sound familiar? These are dark patterns – design techniques that push a person toward actions they would not take if they understood what was really going on.

EXPERT M. Zborovskyi
DATE 09.01.2026
CASE Cosmobet
Mykhailo Zborovskyi

What Dark Patterns Are and Why They Work

The term "dark pattern" was coined by UX researcher Harry Brignull, who described it simply: a manipulative or deceptive trick in software that makes a person do something they would not have done if they had understood what was going on or had a choice at that moment.

In research literature, dark patterns in games are defined as system elements specifically created for a negative experience. In other words, this is not an accident or a side effect – it is a deliberate design decision.

According to research, the most common examples of dark patterns include:

  • Daily rewards and streaks;
  • Pay-to-skip timers;
  • Premium currencies;
  • Limited-time scarcity;
  • Rewarded ads.

Each of these elements may look innocent on its own. The problem lies in how they combine into a system that works to keep a person in the product against their own intentions.

Why This Is No Longer Just Design

What used to be considered a purely product practice is now becoming the subject of lawsuits and government regulation. The European Commission has already announced investigations into gaming platforms suspected of violating the Digital Services Act through manipulative monetization schemes, and violations can cost companies up to 6% of their global annual revenue.

Some countries have gone even further: Belgium, Finland and the Netherlands, for example, have recognized loot boxes bought with real money as a form of gambling and are trying to restrict them. The situation in the US is also telling: the Federal Trade Commission fined the game Fortnite 245 million dollars precisely because of its game mechanics for interacting with users. Policy ReviewPolicy Review

Where the Line with Ethical Design Lies

The most important thing to understand is that the mechanics themselves (rewards, timers, progress bars) are not the problem. The problem arises when the mechanics are built to hide the real cost of an action, make it harder to leave or play on a person's emotional vulnerability.

Does the game remind you of your daily streak because it is part of a pleasant ritual, or because it is afraid of losing you and therefore plays on your fear of loss? Does the timer show real scarcity, or is it just a visual trick that creates artificial pressure?

Regulators are increasingly formulating this difference in legal terms. India's regulator, for example, directly defines dark patterns as destructive designs that violate user autonomy and deceptively push users toward unwanted decisions.

Why Ethical Design Is Not About Charity

This is where a common myth should be dispelled: abandoning dark patterns is not a business sacrifice for the sake of ethics. It is a long-term survival strategy for the product.

The line between a dark pattern and normal game mechanics is a question of transparency and respect for the player's autonomy. If a person understands at any moment what is happening, how much it costs and how to leave, that is honest design, even if it is engaging. If, however, the mechanics are built so that a person does something they would not do consciously, that is a dark pattern, no matter how beautifully it is presented.

For product teams, this is a question of decision architecture. And, as the trend of the past two years shows, the market and regulators are increasingly responding to dishonest design not with fines for individual cases, but with systemic changes to the rules of the game for the entire industry.

Why You Can Trust Us

Our materials are based on open research, regulatory decisions and the public positions of specialized organizations. For risk assessment and terminology, we follow ENISA recommendations and the approaches described in OWASP.

How We Verify Information

Every statement about statistics, fines or legislation is checked against the primary source. If the data is ambiguous, we say so directly and do not present a hypothesis as fact.

Editorial Principles

We write in short sentences, without pathos and without exaggeration. We give priority to practice: what exactly can be changed in a product so that the user stays informed and has a real choice.