False hierarchy
Consent choices with unequal prominence
A fictional service displays a full-width coloured “Accept all” button while “Use necessary data only” is a faint text link after several paragraphs.
Individual HTML example · Interface interference
Annual upgrade dominates monthly continuation
A fictional software trial uses a large highlighted annual-upgrade card and places the existing monthly option as low-contrast text beneath testimonials.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
Annual upgrade dominates monthly continuation
A fictional software trial uses a large highlighted annual-upgrade card and places the existing monthly option as low-contrast text beneath testimonials.
Recommended annual plan. The existing monthly path is separated and de-emphasised.. Displayed amount: $240. Choose monthly or annual
Compare billing options. Annual and monthly prices, commitments and controls receive comparable treatment.. Choose monthly or annual. $240 billed now. Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Choose monthly or annual” remain beside this choice.
Why the first version can mislead: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the subscription decision. The problematic state shows: “The existing monthly path is separated and de-emphasised.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “$240 billed now” with “Choose monthly or annual”. A subscriber may enter a longer commitment without noticing the viable monthly alternative.
What a fairer design does: Show annual and monthly options together with total price, billing period and equivalent controls.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
- The existing monthly path is separated and de-emphasised.Why this state matters: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the subscription decision. The problematic state shows: “The existing monthly path is separated and de-emphasised.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “$240 billed now” with “Choose monthly or annual”. A subscriber may enter a longer commitment without noticing the viable monthly alternative.
- Choose monthly or annualReview prompt: Do “$240 billed now” and “Choose monthly or annual” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
Neutral alternative
- Annual and monthly prices, commitments and controls receive comparable treatment.Fairer design: Show annual and monthly options together with total price, billing period and equivalent controls.
- Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Choose monthly or annual” remain beside this choice.Review prompt: Place the compared prices, billing periods and material terms on one evidence sheet; where does it support “The business-favoured option is identified with evidence”?
Review questions (3)
- Do “$240 billed now” and “Choose monthly or annual” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Place the compared prices, billing periods and material terms on one evidence sheet; where does it support “The business-favoured option is identified with evidence”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “visual difference with no identifiable business-favoured consequence”?
Complete practice context
How this example relates to False hierarchy
Parallel options are presented as if one were hierarchically primary, giving a business-favoured option materially greater visual or interactive prominence. 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
Bundled options
Ticket and travel pass presented as one package
A fictional ticket seller offers a concert ticket only through a control that also adds a city travel pass, although the travel component is separately deliverable and not required for entry.
Bundled options
Support and migration locked into one plan
A fictional service offers a core plan only as a bundle with premium support and data migration, while implying those extras can be removed later although no controls exist.
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
- Competition and Consumer Act 2010, including Schedule 2: Australian Consumer LawFederal Register of Legislation · Primary · checked 2026-09-14 · C2004A00109
- Manipulative conduct in the digital economy, pricing claims and competition in essential services among ACCC priorities for year aheadAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission · Primary · checked 2026-08-09
- Unfair trading tricks and traps to be bannedTreasury Ministers · Primary · checked 2026-09-14