OECD aligned example group · 24 comparisons

Interface interference interface examples

Privileges business-favoured actions through visual, linguistic or structural presentation of choices and information.

Select one example to inspect the complete problematic and neutral HTML interfaces. These fictional comparisons support learning and review. The group is a working taxonomy, not a statutory category or a conclusion that a particular interface is unlawful.

Read the group guide All example groups

Bundled options

Ticket and travel pass presented as one package

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.

Open this example

Bundled options

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.

Open this example

Choice or information overload

Tariff grid prevents a workable comparison

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.

Open this example

Choice or information overload

Consent purposes fragmented into dozens of toggles

A fictional signup consent screen lists forty overlapping purposes across five nested panels, with duplicated labels and no summary of the resulting state.

Open this example

Complex or inaccessible language

Cancellation consequence written in legalese

A fictional service describes the effect of cancellation through a 220-word clause containing undefined terms and cross-references immediately before confirmation.

Open this example

Complex or inaccessible language

Payment step changes language without warning

A fictional shop presents product and basket information in English but switches mandatory fee and return text to another language on the payment screen.

Open this example

Disguised advertisement or action

Sponsored result imitates an organic recommendation

A fictional marketplace gives a paid placement the same typography and ranking treatment as organic results, with “sponsored” hidden in a tooltip.

Open this example

Disguised advertisement or action

Fake close control opens another promotion

A fictional app draws an “×” in the corner of an upgrade ad, but tapping it opens the purchase page instead of dismissing the ad.

Open this example

False hierarchy

Consent choices with unequal prominence

A fictional service displays a full-width coloured “Accept all” button while “Use necessary data only” is a faint text link after several paragraphs.

Open this example

False hierarchy

Annual upgrade dominates monthly continuation

A fictional software trial uses a large highlighted annual-upgrade card and places the existing monthly option as low-contrast text beneath testimonials.

Open this example

Feedforward ambiguity

“Continue” places a paid order

A fictional checkout ends with a button labelled only “Continue”, although activating it immediately places the $86 order.

Open this example

Feedforward ambiguity

Sharing toggle has no visible state meaning

A fictional profile uses a switch labelled “Visibility” without saying whether the current position makes activity public or private.

Open this example

Hidden or ineffective material information

Non-refundable condition appears after fare selection

A fictional rail booking page labels a fare “Flexible Saver” but places the fact that it is non-refundable inside a collapsed section reached only after passenger details.

Open this example

Hidden or ineffective material information

Major exclusion dispersed across tabs

A fictional repair plan headlines “Every appliance covered” but splits an exclusion for boilers across three collapsed help tabs reached only after booking.

Open this example

Confirmshaming and emotional pressure

Decline copy shames a safety choice

A fictional checkout labels an $18 protection purchase “Protect my family” and the refusal “No, I do not care if they are at risk”.

Open this example

Confirmshaming and emotional pressure

Cancellation message frames departure as betrayal

A fictional service tells a subscriber that leaving will “let the whole community down” before each of three confirmation steps.

Open this example

Misleading reference pricing

Permanent sale uses an invented “was” price

A fictional store shows “Was $180, now $79” even though the jacket has never been offered for $180 and sells at $79 throughout the season.

Open this example

Misleading reference pricing

Member discount compares with unavailable tier

A fictional booking service calls $90 a “40% member saving” by comparing it with a $150 flexible fare that is not offered for the same dates or conditions.

Open this example

Preselection and biased defaults

Paid protection preselected in basket

A fictional retailer preselects a $12 protection plan and includes it in the total before the shopper has made a distinct choice.

Open this example

Preselection and biased defaults

Annual plan active by default

A fictional streaming service opens with the annual plan selected and highlights a monthly-equivalent figure while the payable annual total is smaller.

Open this example

Pressured upselling

Current plan framed as unsafe

A fictional renewal screen repeatedly warns that keeping the current tier will leave files “unsafe”, although the security controls are identical across tiers.

Open this example

Pressured upselling

Repeated upgrade framing around room-only booking

A fictional booking flow places three sequential upgrade panels before room-only continuation and describes the basic booking as “missing the complete trip”.

Open this example

Trick question

Double negative controls marketing

A fictional signup asks users to tick “Do not untick if you do not want to miss offers”, making the resulting marketing choice hard to predict.

Open this example

Trick question

Reversed wording in cancellation survey

A fictional cancellation dialog asks “Are you sure you don’t want us not to keep your plan active?” before displaying yes and no buttons.

Open this example

Sources used across this example group

Evidence base

Sources

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 Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Act 2026Federal Register of Legislation · Primary · checked 2026-09-14 · C2026A00064
Dark commercial patternsOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 336
Competition and Consumer Act 2010, including Schedule 2: Australian Consumer LawFederal Register of Legislation · Primary · checked 2026-09-14 · C2004A00109
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
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