The FTC has entered into a proposed order to make Publisher's Clearing House change its marketing for one of the most famous sweepstakes in America.  According to the FTC's complaint, Publisher's Clearing House misled consumers to make them believe that they must make a purchase to win or that making a purchase will increase their chances of winning.  This included sending out misleading emails that claimed consumers must take a final step to be eligible to win a sweepstakes.  When they clicked on the link to take the final step, consumers were sent to an ecommerce page trying to entice them to make a purchase.  In addition, the FTC claimed that many of Publisher's Clearing House marketing methods were "dark patterns."  For instance, the company's homepage had a large button on it that said "WIN IT!"  But when consumers click on the button, they would not be taken to the entry page.  Instead, the consumers were forced to click through advertisements and sale pitches, which tried to entice consumers into make purchases as a way to enter the sweepstakes.  In addition, the FTC's complaint charged Publisher's Clearing House with the following: 

- Failing to disclose the true price of goods

- Deceiving consumers about "no risk" purchases

- Using misleading email subjects

- Having misleading statements in its privacy policy

As part of the settlement, Publisher's Clearing House has agreed to do the following:

- Pay $18.5 million to the FTC to refund consumers

- Stop deceiving consumers that purchases will increase a consumer's chance of winning the sweepstakes

- Separate sweepstakes entry forms from sale order forms

- Make clear disclosures that a purchase is not required to enter and will not increase a consumer's chance of winning

- Stop deceptive emails

- Preserve records to prevent the further use of dark patterns

While the action against Publisher's Clearing House involved a sweepstakes, the FTC's claims were focused on Publisher's Clearing House's misleading claims to consumers and dark patterns.  In particular, unlike many of the FTC's prior dark pattern cases, which focused on the cancellation of a product or negative options, this case focused on the dark pattern enticing an unnecessary purchase.  Therefore, this case not only highlights the FTC's focus on dark patterns but also that it is broadening its interpretations on how dark patterns can be used to deceive consumers.