Comparison prevention
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.
Individual HTML example · Obstruction
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.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
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.
Review one plan. Opening another quote removes the earlier plan and changes the order of attributes.. Open next quote. Open comparison table
Compare three quotes. Selected plans remain visible in one consistent table.. Open comparison table. Open next quote. 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 insurance quote comparison example, the obstacle is: “Opening another quote removes the earlier plan and changes the order of attributes.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “Open comparison table” reaches the represented state. A shopper may be unable to compare material dimensions and may default to the plan the interface opens last.
What a fairer design does: Provide a durable side-by-side table with consistent price, limit, excess and exclusion fields, while keeping source detail available.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
- Opening another quote removes the earlier plan and changes the order of attributes.Why this state matters: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this insurance quote comparison example, the obstacle is: “Opening another quote removes the earlier plan and changes the order of attributes.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “Open comparison table” reaches the represented state. A shopper may be unable to compare material dimensions and may default to the plan the interface opens last.
- Open comparison tableReview prompt: How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “Open next quote” from the completed insurance quote comparison outcome?
Neutral alternative
- Selected plans remain visible in one consistent table.Fairer design: Provide a durable side-by-side table with consistent price, limit, excess and exclusion fields, while keeping source detail available.
- 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 “At least one material attribute cannot be compared without avoidable transformation or navigation”?
Review questions (3)
- How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “Open next quote” from the completed insurance quote comparison outcome?
- Place the compared prices, billing periods and material terms on one evidence sheet; where does it support “At least one material attribute cannot be compared without avoidable transformation or navigation”?
- Measure the same task through the clearest available route: does the effort difference persist once “optional advanced detail with a complete comparable summary” 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