Forced or bundled consent
Purchase terms combined with promotions
A fictional ticket seller requires one checkbox that accepts the purchase terms, promotional messages and sharing with event partners.
Individual HTML example · Forced action
Optional analytics bundled with access
A fictional news service presents one accept control for essential storage, audience analytics, advertising profiles and partner sharing, while access is blocked.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
Optional analytics bundled with access
A fictional news service presents one accept control for essential storage, audience analytics, advertising profiles and partner sharing, while access is blocked.
Accept and enter. Essential storage, analytics, advertising and partner sharing are one package.. Selected: Accept everything. Not selected: Use necessary storage only
Choose data uses. Necessary storage is explained and optional purposes have separate controls.. Not selected: Use necessary storage only. Not selected: Accept everything. Choice consequences, expanded: The consequence of selecting “Use necessary storage only” is displayed beside the option.
Why the first version can mislead: The additional dependency controls access to the signup goal. The panel states: “Essential storage, analytics, advertising and partner sharing are one package.” Reviewers need to establish whether “Accept everything” is necessary for the selected task or pressures the user into a separable action. A visitor cannot distinguish necessary operation from optional data uses or express separate choices.
What a fairer design does: Separate purposes, explain consequences and keep optional permissions off unless the visitor chooses them.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
- Essential storage, analytics, advertising and partner sharing are one package.Why this state matters: The additional dependency controls access to the signup goal. The panel states: “Essential storage, analytics, advertising and partner sharing are one package.” Reviewers need to establish whether “Accept everything” is necessary for the selected task or pressures the user into a separable action. A visitor cannot distinguish necessary operation from optional data uses or express separate choices.
- Not selected: Use necessary storage onlyReview prompt: What functional need makes “Accept everything” necessary for the news site entry goal, and can that need be met with less disclosure or commitment?
Neutral alternative
- Necessary storage is explained and optional purposes have separate controls.Fairer design: Separate purposes, explain consequences and keep optional permissions off unless the visitor chooses them.
- Choice consequences, expanded: The consequence of selecting “Use necessary storage only” is displayed beside the option.Review prompt: Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “Multiple consequences or purposes are attached to one acceptance control”?
Review questions (3)
- What functional need makes “Accept everything” necessary for the news site entry goal, and can that need be met with less disclosure or commitment?
- Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “Multiple consequences or purposes are attached to one acceptance control”?
- Could the stated purpose make this dependency genuinely necessary under the boundary “Single necessary processing operation clearly explained”, and what product evidence would demonstrate that necessity?
Complete practice context
How this example relates to Forced or bundled consent
Access is conditioned on accepting optional or separable data uses, communications or permissions as one bundled choice. 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
Automatic attention capture
Autoplay overrides a session limit
A fictional video service starts another clip when a user’s chosen twenty-minute limit is reached and hides the leave action behind a full-screen recommendation.
Automatic attention capture
Infinite catalogue without progress cues
A fictional marketplace continuously inserts new products and removes pagination, position and viewed-item markers while promotional prompts follow the shopper.
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