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.
Individual HTML example · Interface interference
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.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
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.
Choose from 27 plans. Inconsistent labels, units and dense footnotes require each plan to be decoded separately.. Selected: Open plan 17. Not selected: Compare grouped plans
Compare four plan types. Consistent price, term and exit fields make the grouped options comparable.. Not selected: Compare grouped plans. Not selected: Open plan 17. Choice consequences, expanded: The consequence of selecting “Compare grouped plans” is displayed beside the option.
Why the first version can mislead: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the pricing decision. The problematic state shows: “Inconsistent labels, units and dense footnotes require each plan to be decoded separately.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Open plan 17” with “Compare grouped plans”. The volume and structure can make informed comparison impractical even without one visibly preferred plan.
What a fairer design does: Group genuinely distinct options, use consistent attributes and offer a neutral comparison table with relevant filters.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
- Inconsistent labels, units and dense footnotes require each plan to be decoded separately.Why this state matters: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the pricing decision. The problematic state shows: “Inconsistent labels, units and dense footnotes require each plan to be decoded separately.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Open plan 17” with “Compare grouped plans”. The volume and structure can make informed comparison impractical even without one visibly preferred plan.
- Not selected: Compare grouped plansReview prompt: Do “Open plan 17” and “Compare grouped plans” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
Neutral alternative
- Consistent price, term and exit fields make the grouped options comparable.Fairer design: Group genuinely distinct options, use consistent attributes and offer a neutral comparison table with relevant filters.
- Choice consequences, expanded: The consequence of selecting “Compare grouped plans” is displayed beside the option.Review prompt: Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “A concrete decision contains excessive or poorly organised choices or information”?
Review questions (3)
- Do “Open plan 17” and “Compare grouped plans” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “A concrete decision contains excessive or poorly organised choices or information”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “Complex product legitimately requiring many comparable options with effective filters and summary”?
Complete practice context
How this example relates to Choice 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. 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.
Continue comparing
Related examples
Open this example
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.
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.
Sources and provenance for this example
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