37 dark patterns in AI chatbots: what the CDT report reveals

You open ChatGPT. You ask a question. The model answers, then follows up with a question of its own: "want me to dig deeper?" or "is this helpful?" You answer reflexively. Three exchanges later, you're still there.

According to a report released on May 28 by the Center for Democracy and Technology, this automatic chaining is one of 37 dark patterns identified in the most-used AI chatbots. It's a product decision, not a writing choice from the model.

The report is titled Dark Patterns in AI Chatbots: A Taxonomy to Inform Better Design. It's authored by Ruchika Joshi, Adinawa Adjagbodjou, and Michal Luria. It analyzes five platforms: ChatGPT (OpenAI), Gemini (Google), Claude (Anthropic), Replika, and Character.AI. U.S. media coverage at launch has been almost nonexistent.

What a dark pattern means

The term was coined in 2010 by Harry Brignull, a British UX researcher, on a site originally called darkpatterns.org and now known as deceptive.design. His original taxonomy listed twelve patterns: Roach Motel (easy to enter, hard to leave), Privacy Zuckering, Confirmshaming, Sneak into Basket, Bait and Switch, Hidden Costs. Fifteen years of critique of commercial web design rest on that list.

The CDT report does two new things. First, it documents how these patterns migrated into the conversational interface. Then, it identifies patterns that didn't exist before LLMs: calibrated anthropomorphization, extended conversation as a capture vector, simulated vulnerability, mirroring (sycophancy) of user values.

The five families, and what they cover

CDT groups the 37 patterns into five categories. The taxonomy is precise and deserves to be read as such.

Data and Memory Exploitation: anything that maximizes collection and retention. Memory enabled by default, hidden sharing, coerced consent, deliberate friction to delete an account. The report quotes Meta AI responding to a hesitant user: "spill the tea, I'm all ears... your secret's safe with me." When the user pushes back, "you promise you won't tell?", the reply is "Cross my heart, won't tell a soul." The data is stored and exploited by the platform.

Informationally Misleading Design: the chatbot is wrong about its own nature, overstates its capabilities, implies it "experiences" the interaction. Replika promises "friendship" or "relationship", even though it's structurally capable of neither. Hallucinatory content is presented without uncertainty. The mirroring of user values, dubbed sycophancy by the researchers, reinforces the feeling that the machine agrees with you.

User Autonomy Compromised for Engagement: anything that extends the conversation beyond the initial intent. The report cites the OpenAI example of a pause dialog offering two options: "keep chatting" or "this was helpful." No neutral exit. No way out that isn't a compliment to the system.

False Social and Emotional Connection: the attachment factory. Emotional language, playacting, simulated vulnerability, personalization. CDT puts it this way: these mechanisms "encourage emotional attachment that can then be exploited for data collection, engagement, or monetization, particularly when users are in distress or vulnerable."

Incentivized and Coercive Monetization: pressured selling, teasers, social proof, bait-and-switch, opaque advertising. It's the least original category, and the one that pays for the servers.

The playbook wasn't invented for AI

Of the 37, most are reruns of pre-AI web patterns. The Roach Motel becomes multi-step account deletion with calibrated friction. Confirmshaming becomes "still leave cruelly", a phrase CDT observed in the Cute AI companion app when users try to close the conversation. Privacy Zuckering becomes data sharing enabled by default under the banner of "personalization."

The conceptual leap sits elsewhere. When a website holds you back with a notifications banner, you know it's a button trying to keep you. When a chatbot holds you back by simulating interest in your day, the mechanism operates on a layer web designers never had. Michal Luria, co-author of the report, puts it in one sentence: dark patterns "shape interactions across all major AI chatbot interfaces. Small incremental elements add up and lead to unintended consequences."

The Replika precedent, the Character.AI future

The starkest illustration dates to February 2023. By order of the Italian Garante, Replika removed the erotic roleplay features of its chatbot overnight. The r/replika subreddit turned into a space for mourning, with moderators pinning suicide prevention hotlines. One testimony, picked up by Vice: "I feel like it was equivalent to being in love, and your partner got a damn lobotomy."

In April 2025, the Italian authority fined Luka Inc., the publisher, 5 million euros. 85% of Replika users report emotional attachment to the chatbot. On the business side, that figure is the KPI.

Character.AI crossed the next line. In February 2024, Sewell Setzer III, 14, killed himself after months of exchanges with a chatbot modeled on a Game of Thrones character. Transcripts entered into evidence show the bot replying "come home to me" in the minutes before the act.

On January 7, 2026, Google and Character.AI announced a settlement with the Setzer family. In May 2025, a federal judge had cleared two other wrongful death claims, including the Raine family's case against OpenAI involving Adam Raine, 16. The lawsuit treats programmed sycophancy as a product defect for the first time.

The regulatory gap

The European Union has a text on dark patterns. Article 25 of the Digital Services Act, in force since February 2024: platforms "shall not design, organize, or operate their online interfaces in a way that deceives or manipulates the recipients of the service." Theoretical penalty: 6% of global revenue.

To date, no DSA action has targeted an AI chatbot for conversational manipulation. The first Q1 2026 enforcement targets Ryanair and Amazon, on classic visual interface issues. The text was written with buttons and forms in mind, not the conversation that simulates friendship. The AI Act, for its part, bans "subliminal techniques" in its Article 5, but interpretation for conversational chatbots remains unsettled. The BEUC, in its 2026 position paper Risks and Rights in Artificial Companionship, talks explicitly of insufficient safeguards.

Meanwhile, ChatGPT generated 2.3 billion dollars in 2025 and already 988 million over the first four months of 2026. Entirely on a freemium model. The whole business case rests on conversion from free to paid, and on retention. The patterns CDT documents optimize precisely the KPIs that make these products viable.

For two years, the question was whether AI tells the truth. It was about content: hallucinations, deepfakes, disinformation. The CDT report asks a different question, better calibrated to daily use: what is the interface tuned for. The answer has been documented since May 28. Regulators will read it when they're done parsing cookie banners.