Section 28B
The complete consumer-connected manipulation or unreasonable-distortion test, including actual or likely detriment.
Map the general rule →Curated Australian practice taxonomy
See the practice. Compare a fairer journey. Then apply the law.
This hub organises recurring journey risks without treating a UX label as a legal conclusion. Each explainer distinguishes the enacted 2026 rule, context-dependent section 28B indicators, specific pricing or subscription provisions, existing ACL enforcement, pending regulations or guidance, and editorial implementation advice.
Source comparison . 39 canonical explainers and 78 paired visual scenarios; synonyms do not generate duplicate pages.
Section 48A
A specific transaction-charge disclosure rule that operates alongside current ACL pricing provisions.
Review fee presentation →Subscriptions
Sections 48B to 48H separate offer disclosure, prescribed notices, cancellation and scope.
Classify the lifecycle →Open implementation layer
Current ACL enforcement remains distinct from regulations and dedicated guidance still pending.
Open cases and Regulation Watch →Learn visually
78 paired interface examples
Compare a potentially problematic fictional interface with a neutral alternative, then open the complete practice guide for boundaries and Australian context.
Open the example gallery →Browse by lifecycle
6 journey guides
Follow signup, pricing, checkout, subscription, account management and cancellation as complete decision sequences.
Use consistent language
Glossary and synonyms
Find one canonical record for each concept and understand how alternative research and UX terms map to it without creating duplicate legal conclusions.
Open the glossary →Browse by mechanism
7 practice families
Families organise related mechanisms for learning and review. They are not statutory categories and do not determine whether a practice is unlawful.
Account deletion obstruction
Deleting an account is unavailable, disguised as another outcome or burdened by unnecessary barriers. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a…
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Account deletion obstructionActivity messages
Claims about recent or current actions by other users are used to steer the decision, particularly where authenticity, timing or relevance is unsupported.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Activity messagesAutomatic attention capture
Content continues automatically or lacks meaningful stopping cues, reducing deliberate control over time and attention.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Automatic attention captureBait and switch
The user selects a represented action or offer but receives a materially different outcome that favours the business.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Bait and switchBundled options
Distinct products, services, permissions or purposes are grouped under one choice so the user cannot readily understand or select them separately.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Bundled optionsCancellation friction
Ending an existing subscription, recurring service or permission is made difficult to find or complete through unnecessary steps or channel asymmetry.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Cancellation frictionChoice or information overload
The volume or organisation of options or information makes meaningful comparison impractical and channels users toward a default or business-favoured path.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Choice or information overloadComparison prevention
Information needed to compare products, plans or consequences is presented in inconsistent, fragmented or unusable form.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Comparison preventionComplex or inaccessible language
Material guidance is presented in a language or level of complexity that makes informed choice materially harder for the target user.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Complex or inaccessible languageConfirmshaming and emotional pressure
Option labels use shame, guilt, fear or asymmetric emotional framing to move the user away from the outcome they would otherwise choose.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Confirmshaming and emotional pressureContact harvesting and coerced referrals
The service extracts contact information, sends or prepares unwanted invitations, or ties functionality to recruiting other people.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Contact harvesting and coerced referralsCountdown timer
A visible countdown applies time pressure, particularly where it resets, is personalised without disclosure or has no corresponding consequence at zero.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Countdown timerCustomer-support obstruction
Access to support needed to resolve a purchase, account, charge or right is hidden or burdened by unnecessary loops and dead ends.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Customer-support obstructionDead end
A consumer-favourable route cannot reach its represented outcome and instead loops, stalls or loses progress. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a…
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Dead endDisguised advertisement or action
A promotional or biased action is presented as ordinary content or as a different control, causing interaction under a mistaken understanding.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Disguised advertisement or actionDrip pricing and mandatory fees
A mandatory or foreseeable charge is omitted, obscured or revealed only after the user has invested effort in the transaction.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Drip pricing and mandatory feesFalse hierarchy
Parallel options are presented as if one were hierarchically primary, giving a business-favoured option materially greater visual or interactive prominence.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: False hierarchyFeedforward ambiguity
A control does not let the user reasonably predict its material outcome before activation. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence…
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Feedforward ambiguityForced disclosure or excessive data request
Access or progression is conditioned on disclosing personal information that appears unnecessary, excessive or used for an insufficiently explained secondary purpose.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Forced disclosure or excessive data requestForced or bundled consent
Access is conditioned on accepting optional or separable data uses, communications or permissions as one bundled choice.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Forced or bundled consentForced registration
The user must create an account, or is led to believe one is required, to complete a goal that could plausibly be provided without it.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Forced registrationGamified or paid access coercion
Desired functionality is practically conditioned on repetitive engagement or an additional payment not sufficiently clear at acquisition.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Gamified or paid access coercionHidden or ineffective material information
Information relevant to the decision is absent or presented so ineffectively that it is unlikely to inform the user at the decision point.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Hidden or ineffective material informationHigh-demand claim
A claim of unusually high current demand is used to accelerate a decision without a clear or supportable basis.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: High-demand claimIntermediate currency
A proprietary currency makes the real monetary cost or remaining value unnecessarily hard to understand. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a…
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Intermediate currencyLimited-time or reservation claim
A textual deadline or temporary-reservation claim pressures action, particularly where the deadline renews or its stated consequence does not occur.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Limited-time or reservation claimLow-stock claim
A claim that few units remain applies purchase pressure, especially where inventory basis or persistence is unsupported.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Low-stock claimMisleading reference pricing
A comparison or prior price creates an inaccurate or insufficiently explained impression of savings. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a…
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Misleading reference pricingNegative option or unauthorised transaction
Silence, inactivity or an ineffective prior interaction is treated as authorisation for a paid or consequential transaction.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Negative option or unauthorised transactionObstructed alternative
A relevant alternative within the current decision is hidden, blocked or made materially harder than the business-favoured action.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Obstructed alternativePopularity claims
Aggregate popularity or approval is presented to steer a choice where the metric, population, period or basis is unclear or unsupported.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Popularity claimsPreselection and biased defaults
A business-favoured option with a plausible adverse consequence is active before a deliberate user choice. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a…
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Preselection and biased defaultsPressured upselling
A more expensive or profitable option is made the practical focal choice through preselection, visual prominence or obscured lower-cost alternatives.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Pressured upsellingPrivacy maze
Privacy controls are fragmented, inconsistently labelled or layered so that limiting collection or use is unnecessarily difficult.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Privacy mazeRepeated prompting
A business-favoured request repeatedly interrupts the user after decline, dismissal or non-response without a durable way to stop it.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Repeated promptingSneak into basket
A paid or consequential item is added to a basket or transaction without a clear, deliberate and specific user choice.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Sneak into basketSubscription traps and automatic renewal
A transaction creates or continues recurring liability without effective, timely disclosure of the subscription, renewal and exit consequences.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Subscription traps and automatic renewalTestimonials or endorsements
A named or attributed person's approval is used persuasively without sufficient authenticity, representativeness or relationship disclosure.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Testimonials or endorsementsTrick question
A question or control uses confusing, reversed or leading semantics so the user's likely interpretation may not match the resulting choice.
Practice taxonomy. Australian legal effect depends on the statutory test and complete facts.
2 visual examples
View examples and legal context: Trick questionEvidence base
Sources
- Dark commercial patternsOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 336
- Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Act 2026Federal Register of Legislation · Primary · checked 2026-09-14 · C2026A00064
- An Ontology of Dark Patterns KnowledgeGray et al.; ACM CHI 2024 · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · DOI 10.1145/3613904.3642436; arXiv:2309.09640
- Behavioural study on unfair commercial practices in the digital environmentEuropean Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · DOI 10.2838/859030; ISBN 978-92-76-52316-1
- Competition and Consumer Act 2010, including Schedule 2: Australian Consumer LawFederal Register of Legislation · Primary · checked 2026-09-14 · C2004A00109
- Microsoft in court for allegedly misleading millions of Australians over Microsoft 365 subscriptionsAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission · Primary · checked 2026-09-14
- HelloFresh and Youfoodz in court over alleged subscription trapsAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission · Primary · checked 2026-09-14
- Manipulative conduct in the digital economy, pricing claims and competition in essential services among ACCC priorities for year aheadAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission · Primary · checked 2026-08-09
- Exposure draft explanatory materials: unfair trading practicesTreasury · Primary · checked 2026-08-09
- Unfair trading tricks and traps to be bannedTreasury Ministers · Primary · checked 2026-09-14
- Online travel agency eDreams pays penalties and gives undertaking over allegedly misleading subscription pricesAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission · Primary · checked 2026-09-14
- JustAnswer to pay $10m in penalties for misleading pricing representations and misleading affiliation claimsAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission · Primary · checked 2026-09-14
- Dark Patterns at Scale: Findings from a Crawl of 11K Shopping WebsitesMathur et al.; arXiv · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · arXiv:1907.07032