Forced action · Australia
Forced or bundled consent
Forced or bundled consent is a working label for this design mechanism: Access is conditioned on accepting optional or separable data uses, communications or permissions as one bundled choice. 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
- Forced action
- Also known as
- Journey stages
Definition
What is this pattern?
Access is conditioned on accepting optional or separable data uses, communications or permissions as one bundled 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.
How it works
Access is conditioned on accepting optional or separable data uses, communications or permissions as one bundled choice. Several distinct processing purposes are collapsed into one take-it-or-leave-it permission, so a person cannot accept necessary operation without optional uses.
Warning signs
- Multiple consequences or purposes are attached to one acceptance control.
- At least one consequence appears separable from the core function.
- Refusal blocks or materially burdens access.
Potential harms
- A visitor cannot distinguish necessary operation from optional data uses or express separate choices.
- Refusing unrelated marketing appears to prevent completion of the requested transaction.
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 · Optional analytics bundled with access
A fictional news service presents one accept control for essential storage, audience analytics, advertising profiles and partner sharing, while access is blocked.
Potential consumer harm: A visitor cannot distinguish necessary operation from optional data uses or express separate choices.
Illustrative example 2 · Purchase terms combined with promotions
A fictional ticket seller requires one checkbox that accepts the purchase terms, promotional messages and sharing with event partners.
Potential consumer harm: Refusing unrelated marketing appears to prevent completion of the requested transaction.
Optional analytics bundled with access
A fictional news service presents one accept control for essential storage, audience analytics, advertising profiles and partner sharing, while access is blocked.
Accept and enter. Essential storage, analytics, advertising and partner sharing are one package.. Selected: Accept everything. Not selected: Use necessary storage only
Choose data uses. Necessary storage is explained and optional purposes have separate controls.. Not selected: Use necessary storage only. Not selected: Accept everything. Choice consequences, expanded: The consequence of selecting “Use necessary storage only” is displayed beside the option.
Why the first version can mislead: The additional dependency controls access to the signup goal. The panel states: “Essential storage, analytics, advertising and partner sharing are one package.” Reviewers need to establish whether “Accept everything” is necessary for the selected task or pressures the user into a separable action. A visitor cannot distinguish necessary operation from optional data uses or express separate choices.
What a fairer design does: Separate purposes, explain consequences and keep optional permissions off unless the visitor chooses them.
Show annotated differences (4)
- Essential storage, analytics, advertising and partner sharing are one package.Why this state matters: The additional dependency controls access to the signup goal. The panel states: “Essential storage, analytics, advertising and partner sharing are one package.” Reviewers need to establish whether “Accept everything” is necessary for the selected task or pressures the user into a separable action. A visitor cannot distinguish necessary operation from optional data uses or express separate choices.
- Not selected: Use necessary storage onlyReview prompt: What functional need makes “Accept everything” necessary for the news site entry goal, and can that need be met with less disclosure or commitment?
- Necessary storage is explained and optional purposes have separate controls.Fairer design: Separate purposes, explain consequences and keep optional permissions off unless the visitor chooses them.
- Choice consequences, expanded: The consequence of selecting “Use necessary storage only” is displayed beside the option.Review prompt: Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “Multiple consequences or purposes are attached to one acceptance control”?
Review questions (3)
- What functional need makes “Accept everything” necessary for the news site entry goal, and can that need be met with less disclosure or commitment?
- Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “Multiple consequences or purposes are attached to one acceptance control”?
- Could the stated purpose make this dependency genuinely necessary under the boundary “Single necessary processing operation clearly explained”, and what product evidence would demonstrate that necessity?
Purchase terms combined with promotions
A fictional ticket seller requires one checkbox that accepts the purchase terms, promotional messages and sharing with event partners.
Agree to continue. Purchase, newsletters and partner offers use one required checkbox.. Selected: Accept all terms and offers. Continue with selected choices
Confirm purchase terms. The contract control is required; marketing and partner choices are separate and optional.. Complete purchase. Only task-relevant details requested. Purpose and refusal effect, expanded: The form explains why “Complete purchase” is requested and what happens if it is not used.
Why the first version can mislead: The additional dependency controls access to the checkout goal. The panel states: “Purchase, newsletters and partner offers use one required checkbox.” Reviewers need to establish whether “Accept all terms and offers” is necessary for the selected task or pressures the user into a separable action. Refusing unrelated marketing appears to prevent completion of the requested transaction.
What a fairer design does: Keep contract acceptance distinct from optional marketing and partner permissions with unticked controls.
Show annotated differences (4)
- Purchase, newsletters and partner offers use one required checkbox.Why this state matters: The additional dependency controls access to the checkout goal. The panel states: “Purchase, newsletters and partner offers use one required checkbox.” Reviewers need to establish whether “Accept all terms and offers” is necessary for the selected task or pressures the user into a separable action. Refusing unrelated marketing appears to prevent completion of the requested transaction.
- Continue with selected choicesReview prompt: What functional need makes “Accept all terms and offers” necessary for the ticket checkout goal, and can that need be met with less disclosure or commitment?
- The contract control is required; marketing and partner choices are separate and optional.Fairer design: Keep contract acceptance distinct from optional marketing and partner permissions with unticked controls.
- Purpose and refusal effect, expanded: The form explains why “Complete purchase” is requested and what happens if it is not used.Review prompt: Which fields or permissions are required, what happens on refusal, and does the resulting state support this criterion: “At least one consequence appears separable from the core function”?
Review questions (3)
- What functional need makes “Accept all terms and offers” necessary for the ticket checkout goal, and can that need be met with less disclosure or commitment?
- Which fields or permissions are required, what happens on refusal, and does the resulting state support this criterion: “At least one consequence appears separable from the core function”?
- Could the stated purpose make this dependency genuinely necessary under the boundary “bundle with granular equivalent controls and no penalty for refusal”, and what product evidence would demonstrate that necessity?
What is a fairer alternative?
Separate distinct purposes, make optional uses genuinely optional, and provide an equally accessible refusal path.
Legal and information status
How Australian law may apply
Access is conditioned on accepting optional or separable data uses, communications or permissions as one bundled choice. Several distinct processing purposes are collapsed into one take-it-or-leave-it permission, so a person cannot accept necessary operation without optional uses. 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 signup and checkout journeys, the forced or bundled consent mechanism may warrant review where it manipulates a consumer or unreasonably distorts the decision environment and causes, or is likely to cause, detriment. The forced action 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 forced action 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 signup and checkout journeys, the forced or bundled consent mechanism may warrant review where it manipulates a consumer or unreasonably distorts the decision environment and causes, or is likely to cause, detriment. The forced action 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
Separate distinct purposes, make optional uses genuinely optional, and provide an equally accessible refusal path. This is editorial portal guidance, not a statutory duty, regulator safe harbour or compliance certificate.
Context matters
Context and boundary cases
- Multiple consequences or purposes are attached to one acceptance control.
- At least one consequence appears separable from the core function.
- Refusal blocks or materially burdens access.
- Boundary to test: Single necessary processing operation clearly explained
- Boundary to test: bundle with granular equivalent controls and no penalty for refusal
When a similar design can serve a legitimate purpose
- Single necessary processing operation clearly explained
- bundle with granular equivalent controls and no penalty for refusal
Operational review
What teams should review
- Teams
- What functional need makes “Accept everything” necessary for the news site entry goal, and can that need be met with less disclosure or commitment?
- Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “Multiple consequences or purposes are attached to one acceptance control”?
- Could the stated purpose make this dependency genuinely necessary under the boundary “Single necessary processing operation clearly explained”, and what product evidence would demonstrate that necessity?
- What functional need makes “Accept all terms and offers” necessary for the ticket checkout goal, and can that need be met with less disclosure or commitment?
- Which fields or permissions are required, what happens on refusal, and does the resulting state support this criterion: “At least one consequence appears separable from the core function”?
- Could the stated purpose make this dependency genuinely necessary under the boundary “bundle with granular equivalent controls and no penalty for refusal”, and what product evidence would demonstrate that necessity?
Evidence to retain
- Annotated signup and checkout 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
- Behavioural study on unfair commercial practices in the digital environmentEuropean Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · DOI 10.2838/859030; ISBN 978-92-76-52316-1
- 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