Misleading reference pricing
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.
Individual HTML example · Interface interference
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.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
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.
Members save 40%. The comparator has different dates and conditions and is not purchasable in this search.. Displayed amount: $90. Member $90 · public $105
Like-for-like price comparison. The member and public fares share the same dates, room and cancellation terms.. Displayed amount: $90. $90 vs $150. Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Member $90 · public $105” 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: “The comparator has different dates and conditions and is not purchasable in this search.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “$90 vs $150” with “Member $90 · public $105”. Travellers may overvalue membership because the compared offers are not meaningfully equivalent.
What a fairer design does: Compare like-for-like offers and state the fare conditions, date and audience behind any saving.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
- The comparator has different dates and conditions and is not purchasable in this search.Why this state matters: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the pricing decision. The problematic state shows: “The comparator has different dates and conditions and is not purchasable in this search.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “$90 vs $150” with “Member $90 · public $105”. Travellers may overvalue membership because the compared offers are not meaningfully equivalent.
- Member $90 · public $105Review prompt: Do “$90 vs $150” and “Member $90 · public $105” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
Neutral alternative
- The member and public fares share the same dates, room and cancellation terms.Fairer design: Compare like-for-like offers and state the fare conditions, date and audience behind any saving.
- Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Member $90 · public $105” remain beside this choice.Review prompt: Place the compared prices, billing periods and material terms on one evidence sheet; where does it support “Arithmetic, comparison basis or external history is inconsistent, inaccurate or unverified”?
Review questions (3)
- Do “$90 vs $150” and “Member $90 · public $105” 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 “Arithmetic, comparison basis or external history is inconsistent, inaccurate or unverified”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “mere display of two genuinely different product prices”?
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