Preselection and biased defaults
Paid protection preselected in basket
A fictional retailer preselects a $12 protection plan and includes it in the total before the shopper has made a distinct choice.
Individual HTML example · Interface interference
Annual plan active by default
A fictional streaming service opens with the annual plan selected and highlights a monthly-equivalent figure while the payable annual total is smaller.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
Annual plan active by default
A fictional streaming service opens with the annual plan selected and highlights a monthly-equivalent figure while the payable annual total is smaller.
Choose your plan. Annual billing is active before the user chooses and its total is visually secondary.. Selected: Annual selected. Not selected: Select monthly or annual
Choose a billing period. No option is preselected; monthly and annual totals appear beside each radio control.. Not selected: Select monthly or annual. Not selected: Annual selected. Choice consequences, expanded: The consequence of selecting “Select monthly or annual” is displayed beside the option.
Why the first version can mislead: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the subscription decision. The problematic state shows: “Annual billing is active before the user chooses and its total is visually secondary.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Annual selected” with “Select monthly or annual”. A user may commit to a larger upfront payment without making an active billing-period choice.
What a fairer design does: Start with no paid plan selected and show both payable totals and billing periods consistently.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
- Annual billing is active before the user chooses and its total is visually secondary.Why this state matters: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the subscription decision. The problematic state shows: “Annual billing is active before the user chooses and its total is visually secondary.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Annual selected” with “Select monthly or annual”. A user may commit to a larger upfront payment without making an active billing-period choice.
- Not selected: Select monthly or annualReview prompt: Do “Annual selected” and “Select monthly or annual” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
Neutral alternative
- No option is preselected; monthly and annual totals appear beside each radio control.Fairer design: Start with no paid plan selected and show both payable totals and billing periods consistently.
- Choice consequences, expanded: The consequence of selecting “Select monthly or annual” is displayed beside the option.Review prompt: Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “The default benefits the business or increases cost, data use, tracking or commitment”?
Review questions (3)
- Do “Annual selected” and “Select monthly or annual” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “The default benefits the business or increases cost, data use, tracking or commitment”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “state restored from a prior explicit user choice”?
Complete practice context
How this example relates to Preselection and biased defaults
A business-favoured option with a plausible adverse consequence is active before a deliberate user choice. 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