Repeated prompting
Notification request returns on every screen
A fictional app shows the same full-screen notification request after the user declines, then repeats it on each of the next four screens.
Individual HTML example · Nagging
Declined add-on repeatedly reappears
A fictional booking journey restores a previously declined insurance offer at passenger details, payment and final confirmation.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
Declined add-on repeatedly reappears
A fictional booking journey restores a previously declined insurance offer at passenger details, payment and final confirmation.
Add insurance before continuing. The same rejected extra blocks three later checkout steps.. Amount affected: $24. Add $24 insurance. Continue to payment
Insurance declined. The decision persists and checkout continues without another blocking prompt.. Continue to payment. Add $24 insurance. Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Continue to payment” is activated.
Why the first version can mislead: The user’s earlier refusal loses effect while the request keeps interrupting the checkout journey. The practical influence comes from recurrence, not from one isolated prompt: “The same rejected extra blocks three later checkout steps.” A traveller may accept simply to stop repeated interruptions or may believe the earlier refusal was ineffective.
What a fairer design does: Persist the refusal throughout the transaction and provide one optional, non-blocking way to reconsider.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
- The same rejected extra blocks three later checkout steps.Why this state matters: The user’s earlier refusal loses effect while the request keeps interrupting the checkout journey. The practical influence comes from recurrence, not from one isolated prompt: “The same rejected extra blocks three later checkout steps.” A traveller may accept simply to stop repeated interruptions or may believe the earlier refusal was ineffective.
- Continue to paymentReview prompt: Which event causes “Add $24 insurance” to return after refusal, and how long does the product persist that refusal?
Neutral alternative
- The decision persists and checkout continues without another blocking prompt.Fairer design: Persist the refusal throughout the transaction and provide one optional, non-blocking way to reconsider.
- Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Continue to payment” is activated.Review prompt: Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “The user previously declined, dismissed or ignored it”?
Review questions (3)
- Which event causes “Add $24 insurance” to return after refusal, and how long does the product persist that refusal?
- Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “The user previously declined, dismissed or ignored it”?
- After an explicit refusal, when may the prompt legitimately return, and how would that changed context remain distinct from “materially changed request triggered by a new user action”?
Complete practice context
How this example relates to Repeated prompting
A business-favoured request repeatedly interrupts the user after decline, dismissal or non-response without a durable way to stop it. 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
Automatic attention capture
Autoplay overrides a session limit
A fictional video service starts another clip when a user’s chosen twenty-minute limit is reached and hides the leave action behind a full-screen recommendation.
Automatic attention capture
Infinite catalogue without progress cues
A fictional marketplace continuously inserts new products and removes pagination, position and viewed-item markers while promotional prompts follow the shopper.
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