Gamified or paid access coercion
Reward loop required for document export
A fictional study service makes certificate export depend on completing seven daily streak tasks that were not disclosed when the course was bought.
Individual HTML example · Forced action
Energy gate before a purchased level
A fictional game sells a chapter pass but requires hours of repetitive daily tasks or another payment before the purchased final level becomes playable.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
Energy gate before a purchased level
A fictional game sells a chapter pass but requires hours of repetitive daily tasks or another payment before the purchased final level becomes playable.
Chapter pass · $12. The final level also needs 4,000 energy points or a $6 boost.. Displayed amount: $6. Unlock boost $6. Play purchased level
Complete chapter access · $12. All purchased levels are available; optional challenges are labelled separately.. Play purchased level. Unlock boost $6. Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Play purchased level” remain beside this choice.
Why the first version can mislead: The additional dependency controls access to the account management goal. The panel states: “The final level also needs 4,000 energy points or a $6 boost.” Reviewers need to establish whether “Unlock boost $6” is necessary for the selected task or pressures the user into a separable action. Players may pay twice or spend unplanned time to reach content they reasonably understood was included.
What a fairer design does: State the access conditions before purchase and provide a direct route to purchased content without undisclosed grinding or another charge.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
- The final level also needs 4,000 energy points or a $6 boost.Why this state matters: The additional dependency controls access to the account management goal. The panel states: “The final level also needs 4,000 energy points or a $6 boost.” Reviewers need to establish whether “Unlock boost $6” is necessary for the selected task or pressures the user into a separable action. Players may pay twice or spend unplanned time to reach content they reasonably understood was included.
- Play purchased levelReview prompt: What functional need makes “Unlock boost $6” necessary for the mobile game goal, and can that need be met with less disclosure or commitment?
Neutral alternative
- All purchased levels are available; optional challenges are labelled separately.Fairer design: State the access conditions before purchase and provide a direct route to purchased content without undisclosed grinding or another charge.
- Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Play purchased level” remain beside this choice.Review prompt: Place the compared prices, billing periods and material terms on one evidence sheet; where does it support “A concrete function is withheld or made impractical”?
Review questions (3)
- What functional need makes “Unlock boost $6” necessary for the mobile game goal, and can that need be met with less disclosure or commitment?
- Place the compared prices, billing periods and material terms on one evidence sheet; where does it support “A concrete function is withheld or made impractical”?
- Could the stated purpose make this dependency genuinely necessary under the boundary “Ordinary progression intrinsic to a game and transparently described”, and what product evidence would demonstrate that necessity?
Complete practice context
How this example relates to Gamified or paid access coercion
Desired functionality is practically conditioned on repetitive engagement or an additional payment not sufficiently clear at acquisition. 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
- 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