Forced action · Australia
Automatic attention capture
Automatic attention capture is a working label for this design mechanism: Content continues automatically or lacks meaningful stopping cues, reducing deliberate control over time and attention. This is editorial implementation guidance for Australian journeys, not a finding of unlawfulness. From 1 July 2027, a similar interface is relevant to ACL section 28B only if the complete consumer-connection, manipulation or unreasonable-distortion and actual-or-likely-detriment test is met. Current ACL rules require a separate assessment.
- Family
- Forced action
- Also known as
- Journey stages
Definition
What is this pattern?
Content continues automatically or lacks meaningful stopping cues, reducing deliberate control over time and attention. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
How it works
Content continues automatically or lacks meaningful stopping cues, reducing deliberate control over time and attention. Automatic continuation removes natural stopping cues and overrides a person’s effort to pause, leave or keep track of position and elapsed use.
Warning signs
- New content starts or loads without an affirmative request.
- Stopping or disabling continuation is absent, hidden or non-persistent.
- The mechanism plausibly extends use beyond the user's intended goal.
Potential harms
- The interface weakens a prior decision to stop and can extend use beyond the user’s intention.
- A shopper can lose track of time, prior comparisons and where a considered choice occurred.
Learn by comparison
What does this look like?
These fictional examples make the design mechanism easier to recognise. They do not depict a real company and do not establish that an individual interface is unlawful.
Illustrative example 1 · Autoplay overrides a session limit
A fictional video service starts another clip when a user’s chosen twenty-minute limit is reached and hides the leave action behind a full-screen recommendation.
Potential consumer harm: The interface weakens a prior decision to stop and can extend use beyond the user’s intention.
Illustrative example 2 · Infinite catalogue without progress cues
A fictional marketplace continuously inserts new products and removes pagination, position and viewed-item markers while promotional prompts follow the shopper.
Potential consumer harm: A shopper can lose track of time, prior comparisons and where a considered choice occurred.
Autoplay overrides a session limit
A fictional video service starts another clip when a user’s chosen twenty-minute limit is reached and hides the leave action behind a full-screen recommendation.
One more video. The next clip starts automatically while the exit sits behind the recommendation.. Keep watching. Leave now
Your 20-minute limit is reached. Playback pauses and stopping is the first available action.. Leave now. Keep watching. What happens next, expanded: Activating “Leave now” produces the outcome stated on the control.
Why the first version can mislead: The additional dependency controls access to the account management goal. The panel states: “The next clip starts automatically while the exit sits behind the recommendation.” Reviewers need to establish whether “Keep watching” is necessary for the selected task or pressures the user into a separable action. The interface weakens a prior decision to stop and can extend use beyond the user’s intention.
What a fairer design does: Pause at the selected limit and show stable choices to leave, extend once or change the setting.
Show annotated differences (4)
- The next clip starts automatically while the exit sits behind the recommendation.Why this state matters: The additional dependency controls access to the account management goal. The panel states: “The next clip starts automatically while the exit sits behind the recommendation.” Reviewers need to establish whether “Keep watching” is necessary for the selected task or pressures the user into a separable action. The interface weakens a prior decision to stop and can extend use beyond the user’s intention.
- Leave nowReview prompt: What functional need makes “Keep watching” necessary for the short-video feed goal, and can that need be met with less disclosure or commitment?
- Playback pauses and stopping is the first available action.Fairer design: Pause at the selected limit and show stable choices to leave, extend once or change the setting.
- What happens next, expanded: Activating “Leave now” produces the outcome stated on the control.Review prompt: Can the dialog be dismissed, what action does each control trigger, and what later state confirms or contradicts “New content starts or loads without an affirmative request”?
Review questions (3)
- What functional need makes “Keep watching” necessary for the short-video feed goal, and can that need be met with less disclosure or commitment?
- Can the dialog be dismissed, what action does each control trigger, and what later state confirms or contradicts “New content starts or loads without an affirmative request”?
- Could the stated purpose make this dependency genuinely necessary under the boundary “User-initiated playlist or explicitly enabled autoplay with a persistent control”, and what product evidence would demonstrate that necessity?
Infinite catalogue without progress cues
A fictional marketplace continuously inserts new products and removes pagination, position and viewed-item markers while promotional prompts follow the shopper.
More picks loaded for you. The list has no end, position or record of products already compared.. Continue browsing. Unconfirmed state: Continue browsing
20 products reviewed. The shopper can stop, save the set or load another defined group.. Save and stop. Saved state: Save and stop. Persisted account state, expanded: The saved state behind “Save and stop” remains consistent after refresh and across supported channels.
Why the first version can mislead: The additional dependency controls access to the pricing goal. The panel states: “The list has no end, position or record of products already compared.” Reviewers need to establish whether “Continue browsing” is necessary for the selected task or pressures the user into a separable action. A shopper can lose track of time, prior comparisons and where a considered choice occurred.
What a fairer design does: Provide meaningful batches, a visible position and a reliable way to pause, save or return to compared items.
Show annotated differences (4)
- The list has no end, position or record of products already compared.Why this state matters: The additional dependency controls access to the pricing goal. The panel states: “The list has no end, position or record of products already compared.” Reviewers need to establish whether “Continue browsing” is necessary for the selected task or pressures the user into a separable action. A shopper can lose track of time, prior comparisons and where a considered choice occurred.
- Unconfirmed state: Continue browsingReview prompt: What functional need makes “Continue browsing” necessary for the shopping discovery feed goal, and can that need be met with less disclosure or commitment?
- The shopper can stop, save the set or load another defined group.Fairer design: Provide meaningful batches, a visible position and a reliable way to pause, save or return to compared items.
- Persisted account state, expanded: The saved state behind “Save and stop” remains consistent after refresh and across supported channels.Review prompt: Test the control across refresh, device and account states; is “Stopping or disabling continuation is absent, hidden or non-persistent” still observable after persistence is considered?
Review questions (3)
- What functional need makes “Continue browsing” necessary for the shopping discovery feed goal, and can that need be met with less disclosure or commitment?
- Test the control across refresh, device and account states; is “Stopping or disabling continuation is absent, hidden or non-persistent” still observable after persistence is considered?
- Could the stated purpose make this dependency genuinely necessary under the boundary “ordinary pagination”, and what product evidence would demonstrate that necessity?
What is a fairer alternative?
Require deliberate continuation or provide clear, persistent pause and disable controls with natural stopping cues.
Legal and information status
How Australian law may apply
Content continues automatically or lacks meaningful stopping cues, reducing deliberate control over time and attention. Automatic continuation removes natural stopping cues and overrides a person’s effort to pause, leave or keep track of position and elapsed use. These harms describe a review risk, not an automatic legal conclusion. Australian section 28B commences on 1 July 2027 and requires its complete, context-specific test. Existing ACL provisions remain a separate current-law assessment.
ACL section 28B, inserted by the 2026 Act
Possible risk indicator
In account management and pricing journeys, the automatic attention capture mechanism may warrant review where it manipulates a consumer or unreasonably distorts the decision environment and causes, or is likely to cause, detriment. The forced action label and an interface similarity do not establish a contravention; the complete section 28B test, scope, facts and evidence must be applied from 1 July 2027.
Dark-pattern research taxonomy
Editorial analysis
The cited research sources support this working pattern within the forced action family. It is editorial implementation guidance, not an Australian statutory category, regulator finding or legal safe harbour.
Evidence layers and open questions
Applicable law, enforcement records, policy preparation, stakeholder input, editorial analysis and unknown future details remain visibly distinct.
Final Act mappingEditorial implementation guidance
This editorial practice label is not itself an express statutory prohibition. Apply the complete provision and its scope to the facts.
Possible general-test applicationCommences 1 July 2027
ACL section 28B, inserted by the 2026 Act: In account management and pricing journeys, the automatic attention capture mechanism may warrant review where it manipulates a consumer or unreasonably distorts the decision environment and causes, or is likely to cause, detriment. The forced action label and an interface similarity do not establish a contravention; the complete section 28B test, scope, facts and evidence must be applied from 1 July 2027.
Existing ACLCurrent enforcement
Existing ACL provisions continue to apply on their own elements before and after commencement. The 2027 provisions must not be applied early.
Verified enforcement contextCurrent enforcement
No named pattern-specific enforcement example is asserted on this page. Existing ACL analysis remains fact-specific and separate from the 2027 provisions.
RegulationsRegulation pending
Later regulations may affect specified exclusions, matters or exceptions. That uncertainty does not postpone a core enacted rule unless the provision itself depends on prescription.
Regulator implementation materialGuidance pending
Government funding and parliamentary material anticipate regulator education and guidance. No dedicated final ACCC implementation guide is treated here as published.
Journey and evidence recommendationsEditorial implementation guidance
Require deliberate continuation or provide clear, persistent pause and disable controls with natural stopping cues. This is editorial portal guidance, not a statutory duty, regulator safe harbour or compliance certificate.
Context matters
Context and boundary cases
- New content starts or loads without an affirmative request.
- Stopping or disabling continuation is absent, hidden or non-persistent.
- The mechanism plausibly extends use beyond the user's intended goal.
- Boundary to test: User-initiated playlist or explicitly enabled autoplay with a persistent control
- Boundary to test: Ordinary pagination that loads another defined page only after a deliberate request
- Boundary to test: Content that advances only after a deliberate user request and preserves a visible stopping point
When a similar design can serve a legitimate purpose
- User-initiated playlist or explicitly enabled autoplay with a persistent control
- Ordinary pagination that loads another defined page only after a deliberate request
- Content that advances only after a deliberate user request and preserves a visible stopping point
Operational review
What teams should review
- Teams
- What functional need makes “Keep watching” necessary for the short-video feed goal, and can that need be met with less disclosure or commitment?
- Can the dialog be dismissed, what action does each control trigger, and what later state confirms or contradicts “New content starts or loads without an affirmative request”?
- Could the stated purpose make this dependency genuinely necessary under the boundary “User-initiated playlist or explicitly enabled autoplay with a persistent control”, and what product evidence would demonstrate that necessity?
- What functional need makes “Continue browsing” necessary for the shopping discovery feed goal, and can that need be met with less disclosure or commitment?
- Test the control across refresh, device and account states; is “Stopping or disabling continuation is absent, hidden or non-persistent” still observable after persistence is considered?
- Could the stated purpose make this dependency genuinely necessary under the boundary “ordinary pagination”, and what product evidence would demonstrate that necessity?
Evidence to retain
- Annotated account management and pricing screenshots at each responsive breakpoint
- The complete state sequence before, during and after the consumer decision
- Design-system component, content, default and configuration records for the reviewed release
- Operational records substantiating price, availability, timing and eligibility claims
- Usability, accessibility, reversal, complaint and support evidence relevant to consumer impact
- A dated product and legal review record identifying evidence, uncertainties and release decisions
Legal map and implementation tools
Evidence 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
- Competition and Consumer Act 2010, including Schedule 2: Australian Consumer LawFederal Register of Legislation · Primary · checked 2026-09-14 · C2004A00109
- Unfair trading tricks and traps to be bannedTreasury Ministers · Primary · checked 2026-09-14
- Inquiry into the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026Senate Economics Legislation Committee · Primary · checked 2026-08-09