Laws of UX · Examples ← All laws GitHub ↗

Von Restorff Effect

When multiple similar objects are present, the one that differs from the rest is most likely to be remembered.

Read the original on lawsofux.com →

The scenario: the plan-management screen of Streamora, a video-streaming subscription. This screen type is where contrast matters most — and, honestly, where dark patterns live: the same isolation effect that highlights a recommended plan can be abused to camouflage “cancel” or spotlight “upgrade”. Used ethically, it makes both the common action and the dangerous one unmistakable.

What's wrong here? Five identical gray buttons — and the fifth one deletes the account forever. Nothing distinguishes an irreversible destructive action from “Billing history”. That's not just bad memorability; it's the kind of indistinct destructive control that ends in support escalations, chargebacks, and lawsuits. Below, the three pricing cards are equally uniform, so nothing about the page is recalled a minute later.
streamora.tv/account/plan

🔍 What changed

  • Five identical buttons → one filled primary (“Change plan”), three quiet secondaries, and the destructive action moved to a separated, red-outlined danger zone with a warning icon.
  • Distinctiveness works in both directions: the accent color says “this is the usual path”, the red outline says “stop and read before clicking”.
  • Exactly one pricing card is highlighted — the recommended plan — so the choice most people should make is the one they remember.
  • The caveat: if everything is highlighted, nothing is. One emphasis per screen, or the isolation effect cancels itself out.
  • The ethics: the same effect powers dark patterns — a camouflaged cancel link or a screaming upgrade button. Making “Delete account” clearly visible but clearly dangerous is the honest use: distinct, never hidden.

💼 Explaining it to stakeholders

“Today, deleting an account forever looks exactly like checking a billing statement — that's a wrong-click lawsuit waiting to happen, and regulators are actively fining companies over confusing cancellation flows. By giving the screen one clear primary action and styling deletion as visibly dangerous rather than hidden, we reduce accidental churn and support costs while staying on the right side of dark-pattern rules. Contrast is a budget: spend it on one thing per screen and it works; spend it everywhere and it's gone.”