Misleading reference pricing
Member discount compares with unavailable tier
A fictional booking service calls $90 a “40% member saving” by comparing it with a $150 flexible fare that is not offered for the same dates or conditions.
Individual HTML example · Interface interference
Permanent sale uses an invented “was” price
A fictional store shows “Was $180, now $79” even though the jacket has never been offered for $180 and sells at $79 throughout the season.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
Permanent sale uses an invented “was” price
A fictional store shows “Was $180, now $79” even though the jacket has never been offered for $180 and sells at $79 throughout the season.
Weekend saving. An unsubstantiated former price makes the current price appear exceptional.. Displayed amount: $180. $79
Current price. The product is $79; any comparison states its verified basis and period.. Displayed amount: $79. Was $180 · now $79. Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “$79” remain beside this choice.
Why the first version can mislead: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the pricing decision. The problematic state shows: “An unsubstantiated former price makes the current price appear exceptional.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Was $180 · now $79” with “$79”. The reference can create an unsupported impression of exceptional savings and rush comparison.
What a fairer design does: Use a substantiated comparison basis, identify the period or comparator and remove savings claims that cannot be evidenced.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
- An unsubstantiated former price makes the current price appear exceptional.Why this state matters: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the pricing decision. The problematic state shows: “An unsubstantiated former price makes the current price appear exceptional.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Was $180 · now $79” with “$79”. The reference can create an unsupported impression of exceptional savings and rush comparison.
- $79Review prompt: Do “Was $180 · now $79” and “$79” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
Neutral alternative
- The product is $79; any comparison states its verified basis and period.Fairer design: Use a substantiated comparison basis, identify the period or comparator and remove savings claims that cannot be evidenced.
- Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “$79” remain beside this choice.Review prompt: Place the compared prices, billing periods and material terms on one evidence sheet; where does it support “A current price is framed against a reference or discount claim”?
Review questions (3)
- Do “Was $180 · now $79” and “$79” 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 “A current price is framed against a reference or discount claim”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “Accurate, representative and clearly explained reference price”?
Complete practice context
How this example relates to Misleading reference pricing
A comparison or prior price creates an inaccurate or insufficiently explained impression of savings. 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