Interface interference · Australia
Feedforward ambiguity
Feedforward ambiguity is a working label for this design mechanism: A control does not let the user reasonably predict its material outcome before activation. This is editorial implementation guidance for Australian journeys, not a finding of unlawfulness. From 1 July 2027, a similar interface is relevant to ACL section 28B only if the complete consumer-connection, manipulation or unreasonable-distortion and actual-or-likely-detriment test is met. Current ACL rules require a separate assessment.
- Family
- Interface interference
- Also known as
- Journey stages
Definition
What is this pattern?
A control does not let the user reasonably predict its material outcome before activation. 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.
How it works
A control does not let the user reasonably predict its material outcome before activation. The control fails to predict the action or state change it triggers, leaving the user unable to distinguish continuation, submission, payment or publication before activation.
Warning signs
- The action has a material outcome.
- Label and nearby explanation fail to communicate that outcome.
- Execution evidence shows a consequence that a reasonable interpretation would not predict.
Potential harms
- A shopper cannot predict that the next action creates a payment obligation.
- A person may expose account activity while believing they restricted it.
Learn by comparison
What does this look like?
These fictional examples make the design mechanism easier to recognise. They do not depict a real company and do not establish that an individual interface is unlawful.
Illustrative example 1 · “Continue” places a paid order
A fictional checkout ends with a button labelled only “Continue”, although activating it immediately places the $86 order.
Potential consumer harm: A shopper cannot predict that the next action creates a payment obligation.
Illustrative example 2 · Sharing toggle has no visible state meaning
A fictional profile uses a switch labelled “Visibility” without saying whether the current position makes activity public or private.
Potential consumer harm: A person may expose account activity while believing they restricted it.
“Continue” places a paid order
A fictional checkout ends with a button labelled only “Continue”, although activating it immediately places the $86 order.
Review complete. The final control gives no indication that it submits payment.. Continue. Place order and pay $86
Ready to place order. The action states the purchase outcome and amount.. Amount affected: $86. Place order and pay $86. Continue. Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Place order and pay $86” 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: “The final control gives no indication that it submits payment.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Continue” with “Place order and pay $86”. A shopper cannot predict that the next action creates a payment obligation.
What a fairer design does: Name the material outcome and payable total directly on the final control, before activation creates the order.
Show annotated differences (4)
- The final control gives no indication that it submits payment.Why this state matters: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the checkout decision. The problematic state shows: “The final control gives no indication that it submits payment.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Continue” with “Place order and pay $86”. A shopper cannot predict that the next action creates a payment obligation.
- Place order and pay $86Review prompt: Do “Continue” and “Place order and pay $86” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- The action states the purchase outcome and amount.Fairer design: Name the material outcome and payable total directly on the final control, before activation creates the order.
- Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Place order and pay $86” is activated.Review prompt: Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “The action has a material outcome”?
Review questions (3)
- Do “Continue” and “Place order and pay $86” 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 action has a material outcome”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “Conventional navigation with no material commitment”?
Sharing toggle has no visible state meaning
A fictional profile uses a switch labelled “Visibility” without saying whether the current position makes activity public or private.
Visibility. The switch position has no explanatory state or audience.. On. Unconfirmed state: On
Activity visibility · Private. The control names the current audience and the alternative outcome.. Change to public. Saved state: Change to public. Persisted account state, expanded: The saved state behind “Change to public” remains consistent after refresh and across supported channels.
Why the first version can mislead: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the account management decision. The problematic state shows: “The switch position has no explanatory state or audience.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “On” with “Change to public”. A person may expose account activity while believing they restricted it.
What a fairer design does: State the current audience and the effect of changing the control before saving.
Show annotated differences (4)
- The switch position has no explanatory state or audience.Why this state matters: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the account management decision. The problematic state shows: “The switch position has no explanatory state or audience.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “On” with “Change to public”. A person may expose account activity while believing they restricted it.
- Unconfirmed state: OnReview prompt: Do “On” and “Change to public” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- The control names the current audience and the alternative outcome.Fairer design: State the current audience and the effect of changing the control before saving.
- Persisted account state, expanded: The saved state behind “Change to public” remains consistent after refresh and across supported channels.Review prompt: Test the control across refresh, device and account states; is “Label and nearby explanation fail to communicate that outcome” still observable after persistence is considered?
Review questions (3)
- Do “On” and “Change to public” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Test the control across refresh, device and account states; is “Label and nearby explanation fail to communicate that outcome” still observable after persistence is considered?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “clearly disclosed intermediate step before any consequence”?
What is a fairer alternative?
Name the material consequence in the action label or immediately adjacent disclosure before activation.
Legal and information status
How Australian law may apply
A control does not let the user reasonably predict its material outcome before activation. The control fails to predict the action or state change it triggers, leaving the user unable to distinguish continuation, submission, payment or publication before activation. These harms describe a review risk, not an automatic legal conclusion. Australian section 28B commences on 1 July 2027 and requires its complete, context-specific test. Existing ACL provisions remain a separate current-law assessment.
ACL section 28B, inserted by the 2026 Act
Possible risk indicator
In checkout and account management journeys, the feedforward ambiguity mechanism may warrant review where it manipulates a consumer or unreasonably distorts the decision environment and causes, or is likely to cause, detriment. The interface interference label and an interface similarity do not establish a contravention; the complete section 28B test, scope, facts and evidence must be applied from 1 July 2027.
Dark-pattern research taxonomy
Editorial analysis
The cited research sources support this working pattern within the interface interference family. It is editorial implementation guidance, not an Australian statutory category, regulator finding or legal safe harbour.
Evidence layers and open questions
Applicable law, enforcement records, policy preparation, stakeholder input, editorial analysis and unknown future details remain visibly distinct.
Final Act mappingEditorial implementation guidance
This editorial practice label is not itself an express statutory prohibition. Apply the complete provision and its scope to the facts.
Possible general-test applicationCommences 1 July 2027
ACL section 28B, inserted by the 2026 Act: In checkout and account management journeys, the feedforward ambiguity mechanism may warrant review where it manipulates a consumer or unreasonably distorts the decision environment and causes, or is likely to cause, detriment. The interface interference label and an interface similarity do not establish a contravention; the complete section 28B test, scope, facts and evidence must be applied from 1 July 2027.
Existing ACLCurrent enforcement
Existing ACL provisions continue to apply on their own elements before and after commencement. The 2027 provisions must not be applied early.
Verified enforcement contextCurrent enforcement
No named pattern-specific enforcement example is asserted on this page. Existing ACL analysis remains fact-specific and separate from the 2027 provisions.
RegulationsRegulation pending
Later regulations may affect specified exclusions, matters or exceptions. That uncertainty does not postpone a core enacted rule unless the provision itself depends on prescription.
Regulator implementation materialGuidance pending
Government funding and parliamentary material anticipate regulator education and guidance. No dedicated final ACCC implementation guide is treated here as published.
Journey and evidence recommendationsEditorial implementation guidance
Name the material consequence in the action label or immediately adjacent disclosure before activation. This is editorial portal guidance, not a statutory duty, regulator safe harbour or compliance certificate.
Context matters
Context and boundary cases
- The action has a material outcome.
- Label and nearby explanation fail to communicate that outcome.
- Execution evidence shows a consequence that a reasonable interpretation would not predict.
- Boundary to test: Conventional navigation with no material commitment
- Boundary to test: clearly disclosed intermediate step before any consequence
When a similar design can serve a legitimate purpose
- Conventional navigation with no material commitment
- clearly disclosed intermediate step before any consequence
Operational review
What teams should review
- Teams
- Do “Continue” and “Place order and pay $86” 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 action has a material outcome”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “Conventional navigation with no material commitment”?
- Do “On” and “Change to public” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Test the control across refresh, device and account states; is “Label and nearby explanation fail to communicate that outcome” still observable after persistence is considered?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “clearly disclosed intermediate step before any consequence”?
Evidence to retain
- Annotated checkout and account management screenshots at each responsive breakpoint
- The complete state sequence before, during and after the consumer decision
- Design-system component, content, default and configuration records for the reviewed release
- Operational records substantiating price, availability, timing and eligibility claims
- Usability, accessibility, reversal, complaint and support evidence relevant to consumer impact
- A dated product and legal review record identifying evidence, uncertainties and release decisions
Legal map and implementation tools
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
- 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
- Unfair trading tricks and traps to be bannedTreasury Ministers · Primary · checked 2026-09-14
- Inquiry into the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026Senate Economics Legislation Committee · Primary · checked 2026-08-09