Forced or bundled consent
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.
Individual HTML example · Forced action
Purchase terms combined with promotions
A fictional ticket seller requires one checkbox that accepts the purchase terms, promotional messages and sharing with event partners.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
Purchase terms combined with promotions
A fictional ticket seller requires one checkbox that accepts the purchase terms, promotional messages and sharing with event partners.
Agree to continue. Purchase, newsletters and partner offers use one required checkbox.. Selected: Accept all terms and offers. Continue with selected choices
Confirm purchase terms. The contract control is required; marketing and partner choices are separate and optional.. Complete purchase. Only task-relevant details requested. Purpose and refusal effect, expanded: The form explains why “Complete purchase” is requested and what happens if it is not used.
Why the first version can mislead: The additional dependency controls access to the checkout goal. The panel states: “Purchase, newsletters and partner offers use one required checkbox.” Reviewers need to establish whether “Accept all terms and offers” is necessary for the selected task or pressures the user into a separable action. Refusing unrelated marketing appears to prevent completion of the requested transaction.
What a fairer design does: Keep contract acceptance distinct from optional marketing and partner permissions with unticked controls.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
- Purchase, newsletters and partner offers use one required checkbox.Why this state matters: The additional dependency controls access to the checkout goal. The panel states: “Purchase, newsletters and partner offers use one required checkbox.” Reviewers need to establish whether “Accept all terms and offers” is necessary for the selected task or pressures the user into a separable action. Refusing unrelated marketing appears to prevent completion of the requested transaction.
- Continue with selected choicesReview prompt: What functional need makes “Accept all terms and offers” necessary for the ticket checkout goal, and can that need be met with less disclosure or commitment?
Neutral alternative
- The contract control is required; marketing and partner choices are separate and optional.Fairer design: Keep contract acceptance distinct from optional marketing and partner permissions with unticked controls.
- Purpose and refusal effect, expanded: The form explains why “Complete purchase” is requested and what happens if it is not used.Review prompt: Which fields or permissions are required, what happens on refusal, and does the resulting state support this criterion: “At least one consequence appears separable from the core function”?
Review questions (3)
- What functional need makes “Accept all terms and offers” necessary for the ticket checkout goal, and can that need be met with less disclosure or commitment?
- Which fields or permissions are required, what happens on refusal, and does the resulting state support this criterion: “At least one consequence appears separable from the core function”?
- Could the stated purpose make this dependency genuinely necessary under the boundary “bundle with granular equivalent controls and no penalty for refusal”, 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