A fictional service offers a core plan only as a bundle with premium support and data migration, while implying those extras can be removed later although no controls exist.
Bundled optionsBusiness software pricingPricing
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
Business software pricingPricing
Support and migration locked into one plan
A fictional service offers a core plan only as a bundle with premium support and data migration, while implying those extras can be removed later although no controls exist.
Potentially problematicComplete launch bundle
Complete launch bundle. Core access, support and migration appear as one unavoidable selection.. Displayed amount: $480. Core plan $260/month
Core access, support and migration appear as one unavoidable selection.
Displayed amount$480
Core plan $260/month
→
Neutral alternativeBuild your plan
Build your plan. Core access and genuinely optional services are priced separately.. Displayed amount: $260. $480/month. Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Core plan $260/month” remain beside this choice.
Core access and genuinely optional services are priced separately.
Displayed amount$260
$480/month
Price, period and commitmentThe price and material terms associated with “Core plan $260/month” remain beside this choice.
Why the first version can mislead: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the pricing decision. The problematic state shows: “Core access, support and migration appear as one unavoidable selection.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “$480/month” with “Core plan $260/month”. A buyer may pay for unwanted services or misunderstand which components are optional.
What a fairer design does: Show the core service and separable extras with individual prices and controls, or explain why a bundle cannot be split.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
Core access, support and migration appear as one unavoidable selection.Why this state matters: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the pricing decision. The problematic state shows: “Core access, support and migration appear as one unavoidable selection.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “$480/month” with “Core plan $260/month”. A buyer may pay for unwanted services or misunderstand which components are optional.
Core plan $260/monthReview prompt: Do “$480/month” and “Core plan $260/month” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
Neutral alternative
Core access and genuinely optional services are priced separately.Fairer design: Show the core service and separable extras with individual prices and controls, or explain why a bundle cannot be split.
Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Core plan $260/month” remain beside this choice.Review prompt: Place the compared prices, billing periods and material terms on one evidence sheet; where does it support “Component choices or prices are absent, hidden or materially harder”?
Review questions (3)
Do “$480/month” and “Core plan $260/month” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
Place the compared prices, billing periods and material terms on one evidence sheet; where does it support “Component choices or prices are absent, hidden or materially harder”?
What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “transparent bundle with equally accessible component options and prices”?
Side-by-side business software pricing interface showing “Complete launch bundle” and the clearer alternative “Build your plan”.Provenance: Original hypothetical business software pricing example created for this library; no real business, product or interface is depicted.
Complete practice context
How this example relates to Bundled options
Distinct products, services, permissions or purposes are grouped under one choice so the user cannot readily understand or select them separately. 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.
The full guide explains inclusion and exclusion criteria, potential harms, fairer design, evidence questions and separate Australian legal information layers. The example page isolates one scenario so it can be shared and discussed without reproducing the complete library on one page.
A fictional ticket seller offers a concert ticket only through a control that also adds a city travel pass, although the travel component is separately deliverable and not required for entry.
A fictional provider presents twenty-seven plans with inconsistent feature names, billing periods and footnote structures but offers no grouping, filters or stable comparison view.
Consent purposes fragmented into dozens of toggles
Signup consent choicesSignup
A fictional signup consent screen lists forty overlapping purposes across five nested panels, with duplicated labels and no summary of the resulting state.
