Intermediate currency
Unused tokens remain after a service booking
A fictional marketplace sells 100 tokens for $10 while a booking costs 84 tokens and no service costs a multiple that uses the remaining balance.
Individual HTML example · Obstruction
Gem bundle hides an item’s real-money cost
A fictional game prices an item at 1,350 gems but sells gems only in uneven bundles, with no Australian-dollar equivalent near the purchase action.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
Gem bundle hides an item’s real-money cost
A fictional game prices an item at 1,350 gems but sells gems only in uneven bundles, with no Australian-dollar equivalent near the purchase action.
Legendary item · 1,350 gems. Gem bundles obscure that the smallest sufficient purchase costs $19.99.. Buy more gems. Review $19.99 bundle
Legendary item · 1,350 gems ($13.50 value). Balance, shortfall and actual bundle cost are visible before commitment.. Amount affected: $19.99. Review $19.99 bundle. Buy more gems. Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Review $19.99 bundle” is activated.
Why the first version can mislead: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this in-game store example, the obstacle is: “Gem bundles obscure that the smallest sufficient purchase costs $19.99.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “Review $19.99 bundle” reaches the represented state. Players may struggle to understand the real cost and must buy more currency than the item requires.
What a fairer design does: Show the real-money equivalent, available balance and exact currency shortfall before purchase.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
- Gem bundles obscure that the smallest sufficient purchase costs $19.99.Why this state matters: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this in-game store example, the obstacle is: “Gem bundles obscure that the smallest sufficient purchase costs $19.99.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “Review $19.99 bundle” reaches the represented state. Players may struggle to understand the real cost and must buy more currency than the item requires.
- Review $19.99 bundleReview prompt: How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “Buy more gems” from the completed in-game store outcome?
Neutral alternative
- Balance, shortfall and actual bundle cost are visible before commitment.Fairer design: Show the real-money equivalent, available balance and exact currency shortfall before purchase.
- Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Review $19.99 bundle” is activated.Review prompt: Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “The user exchanges real value for a proprietary unit or spends that unit”?
Review questions (3)
- How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “Buy more gems” from the completed in-game store outcome?
- Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “The user exchanges real value for a proprietary unit or spends that unit”?
- Measure the same task through the clearest available route: does the effort difference persist once “Transparent one-to-one or prominently converted loyalty points” is accounted for?
Complete practice context
How this example relates to Intermediate currency
A proprietary currency makes the real monetary cost or remaining value unnecessarily hard to understand. 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