Default Audit: Is a Subscription Checkout Ethical or a Dark Pattern?
Objective: Given five real defaults from a pet-subscription checkout flow, classify each as an ethical nudge or a dark pattern using the lesson's four-reason default-stickiness model and the face-to-face disclosure test, then write a verdict memo.
You're the CRO analyst on Chewy's subscription growth team. Leadership wants a written verdict on whether the current Autoship checkout defaults are ethical nudges or dark patterns before the next board review.
Walk five real checkout defaults, classify each against the lesson's frameworks (why the default is sticky, who it serves, whether it survives disclosure), and flag any that cross the ethical line.
Before you start
What you'll need
Free path (everything below is enough to finish)
No account friction, sortable/filterable table format fits the audit
Paid upgrades (optional, faster/deeper)
Confirms whether shoppers actually notice and uncheck the flagged defaults, not just whether they exist
No access? Manually click through the checkout flow yourself and screenshot each default
The process
2 steps
Step 01 of 02
Defaults are sticky for four compounding reasons: friction to change them, implied authority from whoever set them, loss aversion against giving up a perceived endowment, and users not realizing a choice exists at all.
Below are five real Autoship checkout defaults. For each, name which of the four stickiness reasons is doing the work, and whether the default serves the shopper's stated goal or Chewy's KPI at the shopper's expense.
Procedure
- List the five defaults: (1) Autoship pre-checked on first order of a repeat-purchase item, (2) largest bag size pre-selected as the 'best value' option, (3) email marketing opt-in pre-checked below the fold, (4) delivery frequency defaulted to the shortest interval (highest order volume), (5) 'add pet insurance quote' pre-selected as an add-on line item
- For each row, name the dominant stickiness reason (friction, authority, loss aversion, or unawareness)
- Mark 'Serves Whom': shopper, Chewy, or both
- Write a one-line verdict per row: ethical nudge, borderline, or dark pattern
Default Stickiness Reason Serves Whom Verdict Autoship pre-checked (repeat item) Unawareness Both Ethical nudge (real savings, easy to uncheck) Largest bag pre-selected as 'best value' Authority Chewy Borderline (true per-unit price, but frames spend up) Email opt-in pre-checked, below fold Unawareness Chewy Dark pattern (buried, no visible benefit to shopper) Shortest delivery interval defaulted Friction+Authority Chewy Dark pattern (inflates order volume, not shopper need) Pet insurance quote pre-added as line item Loss aversion Chewy Dark pattern (adds cost without an explicit yes)
Healthy
Two of five defaults survive the test cleanly, the rest get flagged with a specific fix (uncheck by default, move above the fold, require an explicit click).
Unhealthy
Marking every default 'ethical' because the company benefits too, or marking every default 'dark pattern' without checking whether it also genuinely helps the shopper.
What this means
A default earns the 'ethical nudge' label only when a shopper who noticed it would still choose it. Three of five defaults here fail that test.
So what do I do about it?
| Symptom | Action | Effort |
|---|---|---|
| A default only reduces friction for the company, not the shopper | Move it from pre-checked to an explicit opt-in with a clear one-line benefit statement | 30 min |
Step 02 of 02
The ethical line is whose interest the default serves: would you be comfortable explaining the default to the customer face-to-face? If no, redesign it.
Take the three defaults you flagged 'dark pattern' or 'borderline' in Step 1. Write the one sentence you would say out loud to a shopper explaining why that default exists.
Procedure
- For each flagged default, write the honest one-sentence explanation you'd give a shopper who asked 'why was this already checked?'
- Mark PASS if the sentence sounds reasonable said out loud, FAIL if it sounds evasive or manipulative
- For every FAIL, propose the specific UI fix (uncheck by default, add disclosure copy, or remove entirely)
Default Explanation Result Fix Email opt-in pre-checked, below fold 'It's checked because most people forget to look down there' FAIL Move above the fold, unchecked by default Shortest interval defaulted 'It's set to arrive most often because that's our best metric' FAIL Default to the shopper's stated order history, not shortest Pet insurance pre-added as line item 'We add it automatically so people don't have to think about it' FAIL Require an explicit checkbox, remove the pre-add
Healthy
Every default that fails the face-to-face test gets a named fix, not just a flag.
Unhealthy
Writing a vague, generous explanation that avoids saying the real (company-benefiting) reason.
What this means
If the honest sentence would make a shopper angry, the default is a liability the moment it's noticed, not a growth lever.
So what do I do about it?
| Symptom | Action | Effort |
|---|---|---|
| A flagged default has no fix proposed | Assign it to a design/eng ticket before shipping the next checkout iteration | 30 min |
Final deliverable
A five-row verdict table classifying each Autoship checkout default as ethical nudge, borderline, or dark pattern, with a named fix for every flagged default.
See a reference example
Warby Parker home try-on checkout, default audit (excerpt) Default Verdict Fix 5-frame limit pre-selected (max allowed) Ethical nudge None, matches shopper's own stated goal Return shipping label pre-printed Ethical nudge None, removes real friction from a return Prescription upload reminder pre-checked Borderline Add a one-line 'why we ask' next to the checkbox Marketing SMS opt-in pre-checked Dark pattern Uncheck by default, require explicit opt-in
Success criteria
You're done when you can:
- All five defaults are classified with a named stickiness reason
- Every 'dark pattern' or 'borderline' verdict has a specific, actionable fix attached