Pressured upselling
Repeated upgrade framing around room-only booking
A fictional booking flow places three sequential upgrade panels before room-only continuation and describes the basic booking as “missing the complete trip”.
Individual HTML example · Interface interference
Current plan framed as unsafe
A fictional renewal screen repeatedly warns that keeping the current tier will leave files “unsafe”, although the security controls are identical across tiers.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
Current plan framed as unsafe
A fictional renewal screen repeatedly warns that keeping the current tier will leave files “unsafe”, although the security controls are identical across tiers.
Protect every file now. Repeated warnings imply a security loss that the plan comparison does not support.. Displayed amount: $29. Upgrade for $29/month. Keep current $12 plan
Compare storage plans. Security is described accurately and the current plan remains an equal option.. Displayed amount: $12. Keep current $12 plan. Upgrade for $29/month. Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Keep current $12 plan” 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: “Repeated warnings imply a security loss that the plan comparison does not support.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Upgrade for $29/month” with “Keep current $12 plan”. Unsupported fear framing may push a subscriber toward a costlier plan they do not need.
What a fairer design does: Compare factual capacity and feature differences, keep the current plan equally usable and let the subscriber deliberately choose any upgrade.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
- Repeated warnings imply a security loss that the plan comparison does not support.Why this state matters: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the subscription decision. The problematic state shows: “Repeated warnings imply a security loss that the plan comparison does not support.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Upgrade for $29/month” with “Keep current $12 plan”. Unsupported fear framing may push a subscriber toward a costlier plan they do not need.
- Keep current $12 planReview prompt: Do “Upgrade for $29/month” and “Keep current $12 plan” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
Neutral alternative
- Security is described accurately and the current plan remains an equal option.Fairer design: Compare factual capacity and feature differences, keep the current plan equally usable and let the subscriber deliberately choose any upgrade.
- Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Keep current $12 plan” remain beside this choice.Review prompt: Place the compared prices, billing periods and material terms on one evidence sheet; where does it support “A lower-cost or less committed alternative exists”?
Review questions (3)
- Do “Upgrade for $29/month” and “Keep current $12 plan” 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 lower-cost or less committed alternative exists”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “Transparent recommendation based on declared needs with equal access to alternatives”?
Complete practice context
How this example relates to Pressured upselling
A more expensive or profitable option is made the practical focal choice through preselection, visual prominence or obscured lower-cost alternatives. 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
- An Ontology of Dark Patterns KnowledgeGray et al.; ACM CHI 2024 · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · DOI 10.1145/3613904.3642436; arXiv:2309.09640
- Dark Patterns at Scale: Findings from a Crawl of 11K Shopping WebsitesMathur et al.; arXiv · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · arXiv:1907.07032
- Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Act 2026Federal Register of Legislation · Primary · checked 2026-09-14 · C2026A00064