Pressured upselling
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.
Individual HTML example · Interface interference
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”.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
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”.
Complete your trip. Three separate panels frame room-only booking as an incomplete choice.. Amount affected: $95. Add extras package $95. Continue room-only
Choose optional extras once. Room-only remains visible and each add-on can be reviewed without loss framing.. Continue room-only. Add extras package $95. Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Continue room-only” is activated.
Why the first version can mislead: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the checkout decision. The problematic state shows: “Three separate panels frame room-only booking as an incomplete choice.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Add extras package $95” with “Continue room-only”. Repeated loss framing may pressure a traveller to add services they did not seek.
What a fairer design does: Present room-only continuation beside optional extras, describe each product factually and avoid repeating a declined offer.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
- Three separate panels frame room-only booking as an incomplete choice.Why this state matters: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the checkout decision. The problematic state shows: “Three separate panels frame room-only booking as an incomplete choice.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Add extras package $95” with “Continue room-only”. Repeated loss framing may pressure a traveller to add services they did not seek.
- Continue room-onlyReview prompt: Do “Add extras package $95” and “Continue room-only” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
Neutral alternative
- Room-only remains visible and each add-on can be reviewed without loss framing.Fairer design: Present room-only continuation beside optional extras, describe each product factually and avoid repeating a declined offer.
- Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Continue room-only” is activated.Review prompt: Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “The higher-value option is preselected, materially more prominent or easier”?
Review questions (3)
- Do “Add extras package $95” and “Continue room-only” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “The higher-value option is preselected, materially more prominent or easier”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “ordinary plan hierarchy with comparable presentation”?
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