Wikipedia:
> In criminal law, fraud is intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual
law.com:
> the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
> A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
fbi.gov, justice.gov:
> [Ponzi Schemes, Fake Lotteries, and Pump&Dump Schemes are typical examples of fraud]
I doubt that one of the above could save themselves from the wrath of the justice department by burying a disclaimer in a heap of legalese served up alongside their bait (otherwise they would be doing it en masse). So the question is what fundamentally separates these from smaller-denomination uses of dark patterns. I'd love for someone who knows what they're talking about to weigh in.
Which is to say, relatively low-damage varieties of evil.
It's a whole different ball game when you're using said patterns to directly extract money from people's bank accounts.
It's a little like calling a bank robbery "shoplifting". I feel like extremely egregious violations of basic morals and ethics shouldn't be described with the same word we use to describe garden variety sketchy practices.
Companies are going to continue to do it because they aren't likely to lose. Best we can do is name and shame everyone involved.
We already know "people don't read online" (anywhere?), so adding words outside of the experience itself justifying their actions isn't just a "dark pattern," it's much worse.
I think dignifying it with the name "dark pattern" makes it too easy to dismiss as "oh, one of those silly things people do to get more signups" versus "Uh, this iOS app just maxed out my credit card because I let my 5 year old play PAY-FOR-POINTS 2.0 FREE EDITION."