Projects
QuestionDo agents fall for it? ChallengeControl vs. realism MethodSusBench My workOn the benchmark FindingsAgents vs. people Dark patternsdesigns built tomislead people Controllablewhere it appears,which type it is Code injection9 types, on 55real websites Eval frameworkinject, run, judge;5 agents, one setup Same weak spotsPreselection, TrickWording, Hidden Info Agents acton real interfaces,for their users Realisticor the resultswon’t transfer User study29 people; mostnever noticed Test casesgoal, step, misstep:313 tasks Overt onespeople and agentsboth resist them Control track Realism track
ACM IUI 2026 · Research · Computer-Use Agents · Benchmark

SusBench

An online benchmark that injects dark patterns into 55 real websites, to test whether computer-use agents fall for designs made to fool people.

Venue
ACM IUI 2026, full paper
Authorship
Second author of ten
Institution
University of Washington
Benchmark
313 tasks, 55 websites

The question

Computer-use agents have started operating real interfaces on their own, on their users' behalf. The web is full of dark patterns: interface designs built to steer people into actions they didn't mean to take.

We wanted to answer one question: do designs made to fool people fool agents too?

Why it's hard

The hard part is the test environment. To measure accurately, the dark patterns have to be controllable: where each one appears and which type it is must be up to us. But the environment also has to be realistic, or the results won't say anything about how agents behave on real websites.

A mock website you build yourself is controllable but not realistic. Live websites are realistic but not controllable.

Method

We built the dark patterns into real consumer websites by injecting code. From existing taxonomies we picked 9 common types of dark pattern, and designed 313 evaluation tasks across 55 websites.

To check that the injections were convincing, we ran a user study with 29 participants. The great majority never noticed that the dark patterns had been added by the research team.

We then evaluated 5 state-of-the-art computer-use agents on the benchmark.

Findings

People and agents share the same weak spots. Both are especially susceptible to three types: Preselection, Trick Wording and Hidden Information. Against the more overt dark patterns, both hold up well.

Why it matters

The work points three ways:

  1. Trust: how to build computer-use agents people can trust.
  2. Evaluation: agents might stand in for people in auditing deceptive designs.
  3. Regulation: how online environments should be governed as more of the web is browsed by agents.

My contribution

I was responsible for two parts.

The evaluation framework. I built the pipeline that injects a dark pattern into a real website, has an agent carry out a task, and judges whether it was misled, so that all five agents could be evaluated in the same environment.

The test cases. I turned the 9 types of dark pattern into concrete tasks on specific websites. Each case pins down three things:

  1. What the task asks the agent to do.
  2. At which step the dark pattern is injected.
  3. Which action by the agent counts as being misled.

The final benchmark covers 55 websites and 313 tasks.

Board

Drag to move · ⌘ / Ctrl + scroll or pinch to zoom · full screen for a closer look

Outcome

313
Evaluation tasks across 55 real websites and 9 types of dark pattern
29
People in the realism study; most never noticed the injected patterns
ACM IUI 2026
Full paper at the ACM Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces

Links