Comparison prevention
Plan details cannot be retained side by side
A fictional quote tool reveals one plan at a time, clears the previous plan whenever another is opened and provides no stable summary of limits, excess or exclusions.
Individual HTML example · Obstruction
Plans use incompatible pricing units
A fictional provider shows one plan per week, another per four weeks and a third per gigabyte, without a consistent total or usage assumption.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
Plans use incompatible pricing units
A fictional provider shows one plan per week, another per four weeks and a third per gigabyte, without a consistent total or usage assumption.
Three ways to save. Prices use weekly, four-week and usage units with no common baseline.. Displayed amount: $8. Open comparison table
Compare monthly cost. Every plan shows the same monthly basis, data allowance, term and total.. Open comparison table. From $8. Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Open comparison table” remain beside this choice.
Why the first version can mislead: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this telecom comparison example, the obstacle is: “Prices use weekly, four-week and usage units with no common baseline.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “Open comparison table” reaches the represented state. Customers cannot make a meaningful like-for-like comparison and may select a plan with a higher real cost.
What a fairer design does: Add a consistent billing-period total, usage basis and sortable comparison while preserving original terms.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
- Prices use weekly, four-week and usage units with no common baseline.Why this state matters: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this telecom comparison example, the obstacle is: “Prices use weekly, four-week and usage units with no common baseline.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “Open comparison table” reaches the represented state. Customers cannot make a meaningful like-for-like comparison and may select a plan with a higher real cost.
- Open comparison tableReview prompt: How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “From $8” from the completed telecom comparison outcome?
Neutral alternative
- Every plan shows the same monthly basis, data allowance, term and total.Fairer design: Add a consistent billing-period total, usage basis and sortable comparison while preserving original terms.
- Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Open comparison table” remain beside this choice.Review prompt: Place the compared prices, billing periods and material terms on one evidence sheet; where does it support “Two or more realistic alternatives are presented”?
Review questions (3)
- How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “From $8” from the completed telecom comparison outcome?
- Place the compared prices, billing periods and material terms on one evidence sheet; where does it support “Two or more realistic alternatives are presented”?
- Measure the same task through the clearest available route: does the effort difference persist once “Inherent differences that cannot be expressed on a shared basis” is accounted for?
Complete practice context
How this example relates to Comparison prevention
Information needed to compare products, plans or consequences is presented in inconsistent, fragmented or unusable form. 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
Account deletion obstruction
Deactivation presented as deletion
A fictional platform labels a control “Delete account”, but the confirmation only hides the profile and leaves data and reactivation available indefinitely.
Account deletion obstruction
Deletion buried behind an unsupported ticket
A fictional retailer places account deletion behind six help pages and requires a support ticket containing an order number even for users who never ordered.
Sources and provenance for this example
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