Welcome to the fourth lesson in our module on Power, Ethics, and Governance. In our previous session, we dissected Gerson's Law, examining how a cynical, self-serving mindset can lead to ruthless actions, from design plagiarism in the lingerie industry to emotional manipulation within a relationship. We focused on the unethical choices individuals make to gain an advantage.
Today, we shift our focus from individual actions to the systems of control that enable and enforce such imbalances. Our subject is Doctorow's Law: "Any time someone puts a lock on something you own, against your wishes, and doesn't give you the key, they're not doing it for your benefit."
Your goal in this lesson is to apply this principle to deconstruct two types of "locks": the restrictive return policies in the lingerie business and the non-consensual rules that can emerge in relationship dynamics. We will question whose interests these restrictive systems truly serve.
The Lock, the Key, and the Beneficiary
Doctorow's Law is a principle of critical analysis for evaluating systems of control. It was coined by author and activist Cory Doctorow to describe how technology companies, in particular, use technical and legal restrictions to limit user freedom for their own gain. The "lock" can be anything from digital rights management (DRM) on a file to a non-negotiable term in a contract.
To grasp the full context of this law, it's helpful to watch its creator explain the broader phenomenon he calls "enshittification"—the process by which platforms decay as they shift from serving users to extracting value from them. Doctorow's Law describes a key tool used in this process.
The Ensh*ttification of Everything with Cory Doctorow
In this interview with Adam Conover, Cory Doctorow explains the lifecycle of platform decay and the role that digital locks and the expansion of intellectual property law play in trapping users and customers.
Please watch the following segments to understand the mechanism behind the law: The three-stage process: Doctorow outlines how platforms first attract users (being good to them), then attract business customers (squeezing users), and finally squeeze everyone to extract all value for the platform itself. This is the "enshittification" lifecycle. Felony contempt of business model: Here, he explains how anti-circumvention laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) create a "lock." They make it a felony to bypass DRM, effectively preventing you from modifying a product you own to make it work better for you.
Doctorow's argument is that technology grants companies immense power to alter the deal after the fact. The law then backs them up, making it illegal for you to defend yourself by picking the "lock."
To see how this plays out with tangible products, let's look at a few powerful examples Doctorow provides in another talk.
39C3 - A post-American, enshittification-resistant internet
This talk from the Chaos Communication Congress, "A post-American, enshittification-resistant internet," is a masterclass in applying Doctorow's Law. It details how anti-circumvention laws, originating in the US, were exported globally, creating a world where manufacturers can control products after they are sold.
Focus on these specific, real-world examples of "locks": John Deere tractors: Farmers own their tractors, but a digital lock prevents them from making their own repairs. They must pay for a dealer to enter an unlock code—a clear case of a lock that benefits the manufacturer, not the owner. Apple's App Store: Users own their iPhones, but Apple imposes a lock that prevents them from installing software from sources other than its App Store, where Apple collects a 30% commission. This serves Apple, not the user or the app developer. Medtronic ventilators: Hospitals own these life-saving devices, but they are booby-trapped with locks requiring expensive service calls for simple part replacements, a practice that had deadly consequences during the pandemic. Newag trains: A Polish train company programs its locomotives to break down if serviced by a competitor, then charges a fortune to send an "unbricking" command.
These examples establish a clear pattern: a manufacturer places a restriction (a lock) on a product you have purchased and own. This restriction operates against your wishes (you want to repair your tractor, install an app, etc.) and you are not given the key (the unlock code, the ability to bypass the restriction). The restriction serves only the manufacturer's profit.
Application 1: Restrictive Lingerie Return Policies
Now let's apply this framework to the lingerie industry. When a customer buys a bra, they own it. However, the transaction isn't truly complete until they confirm it fits and serves its function. A restrictive return policy acts as a "lock" on the customer's ability to reverse a poor purchase decision.
- The Lock: Rules like short return windows, restocking fees, deductions for shipping, and outright refusal to accept returns on items like panties for "hygiene reasons."
- Something You Own: The bra and the money you paid for it.
- Against Your Wishes: The customer wishes for a simple, cost-free way to return an item that doesn't fit—a crucial factor for intimate apparel bought online.
- Not Given the Key: The "key" is an unconditional, full refund. It is withheld through the policy's fine print.
- Not For Your Benefit: These policies are explicitly designed to reduce costs for the retailer, not to improve the customer's experience. They shift the financial risk of a poor fit from the business onto the consumer.
The following industry report details precisely why and how retailers are implementing these "locks."
[PDF] A Closer Look at the Changing Landscape of Merchandise Returns
This report by Telsey Advisory Group provides a detailed breakdown of the economic pressures forcing retailers to adopt more restrictive return policies. It quantifies the costs of returns and outlines the specific tactics used to mitigate them.
As you read, focus on how the industry's solutions serve its own interests: First, understand the consumer behavior driving returns in the apparel section. The practice of "bracketing" (ordering multiple sizes to return most) is a rational response from consumers facing uncertainty, but a major cost for retailers. Next, read about the financial calculus for retailers. Pay attention to the litany of costs—packaging, shipping, processing, depreciation—that make free returns an unsustainable practice for them. This section clearly answers "whose benefit" the locks serve. Finally, scan the detailed list of restrictive measures under the heading "How retailers are addressing return challenges." These—charging for labels, restocking fees, shortening windows—are the specific "locks" Doctorow's Law describes.
For a lingerie designer, this presents a direct conflict. Your goal is a perfect fit, but the business's goal is to minimize return costs. A policy that makes it difficult or expensive for a client to return a poorly fitting bra protects the company's bottom line but damages the client relationship and the brand's reputation for quality. It is a lock that serves the retailer's financial health, not the customer's satisfaction. The hygiene exclusion for panties is perhaps the most absolute lock; once purchased, the value is unrecoverable, regardless of fit or defect, a policy that entirely benefits the seller.
Application 2: Unilateral Rules in a Vee Relationship
In a relationship, the "thing you own" is your autonomy, your consent, and your stake in the shared emotional space. A "lock" is a rule or boundary imposed by one person on another without genuine, mutual agreement. Doctorow's Law is a powerful tool for identifying when a relationship "rule" is actually a mechanism of control.
Let's consider the vee relationship (husband, wife, wife's lover).
- The Lock: A unilateral rule. For example, the husband tells the wife, "My support for your other relationship is conditional on you never staying the night at your lover's apartment."
- Something You Own: The wife's autonomy to manage her time and develop her other relationship as she sees fit.
- Against Your Wishes: The wife wishes to have the freedom of an overnight stay.
- Not Given the Key: The husband presents the rule as a non-negotiable condition of his support ("If you do this, I will withdraw my support/our marriage is in jeopardy"). The "key" – the ability to freely negotiate this boundary – is withheld.
- Not For Your Benefit: The rule's primary function is to manage the husband's anxiety and feelings of insecurity. It is designed for his emotional comfort, not for the wife's happiness or the health of her other connection.
The fascinating and insidious part of such "locks" is that the person being restricted often feels compelled to abide by them. A remarkable paper on the psychology of "fine-print fraud" explains this phenomenon. It finds that people have a powerful psychological bias—a form of "lay formalism"—that makes them feel bound by written terms, even if those terms are unfair or contradict what they were told. This is directly analogous to how a partner might feel bound by an unfair relationship rule.
[PDF] Consumer Psychology and the Problem of Fine-Print Fraud
This Stanford Law Review article presents experimental evidence on how "fine print" affects human behavior. Its findings on why people comply with unfair terms provide a powerful psychological lens for understanding Doctorow's Law in relationships.
Your background in experimental design and statistics will make these studies particularly interesting. Please focus on the psychological mechanism: Read the section on Lay Formalistic Intuitions. This explains the core bias: people feel obligated to abide by formalized terms (like a written rule or a stated relationship "policy") even if it's unfair or they didn't really agree to it. Next, examine the results of Study 2, summarized in Table 1. Notice how the mere presence of a "fine print" term—the lock—dramatically reduced people's willingness to take action (complain, sue). A majority (73%) simply resigned themselves to paying the unfair fee. Finally, read the conclusion in the section Consumer Welfare and Policing Fraud. The key insight is that people are "overdeterred by conflicting fine print." They blame themselves ("I should have read the fine print" / "I agreed to this, so I have to live with it") rather than challenging the unfair lock.
This psychological tendency is what gives unilateral rules their power. The wife in our example may feel she has no right to complain because the "no overnights" rule was stated upfront. She internalizes the lock, believing she is bound by the "fine print" of her husband's support. She may not feel entitled to ask for the "key." This serves the husband's interest in maintaining control and comfort, not her interest in having an autonomous, fulfilling relationship. Doctorow's Law forces us to ask: Is this rule a mutually agreed-upon boundary for the health of the system, or is it a lock imposed for one person's benefit?
Conclusion
Doctorow's Law provides a sharp, analytical framework for identifying and questioning systems of control. It moves beyond simple "good vs. bad" judgments to a more structural analysis of power, asking who benefits from any given restriction.
Key Takeaways:
- The Anatomy of a Lock: Doctorow's Law identifies a specific structure of control: a lock placed on something you own, against your wishes, without giving you the key, for the benefit of the locker.
- Commercial Locks: In the lingerie industry, restrictive return policies function as locks that shift the financial risk of a poor fit from the retailer to the customer. They serve the company's interest, not the customer's.
- Relational Locks: In relationships, unilateral, non-negotiable rules act as locks on a partner's autonomy. They often serve the rule-maker's emotional comfort and control. The psychological principle of "lay formalism" helps explain why the restricted partner may feel powerless to challenge these locks.
In our next lesson, we will explore a principle for dismantling such opaque systems: Linus's Law, which states, "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." We will examine how transparency and collective scrutiny can serve as a universal "key" to unlock problems, whether they exist in bra design flaws or in the hidden assumptions of a relationship agreement.