Interface interference · Australia
Hidden or ineffective material information
The final Act identifies failure to disclose material information, and disclosure that is complex, ineffective, unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous, untimely or overwhelming, as examples of conduct that may be an unfair trading practice. From 1 July 2027 the full section 28B test still applies. Existing misleading-conduct law can already apply to omissions and overall impressions in context.
- Family
- Interface interference
- Also known as
- Journey stages
Definition
What is this pattern?
Information relevant to the decision is absent or presented so ineffectively that it is unlikely to inform the user at the decision point. 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
Information relevant to the decision is absent or presented so ineffectively that it is unlikely to inform the user at the decision point. A consequence that could change the decision is moved out of the comparison or commitment view, reduced in salience or split across remote disclosures.
Warning signs
- The information is plausibly material to a concrete decision.
- It is missing, hidden, low-salience, unclear, inaccessible, untimely or overwhelming.
- The deficiency is tied to a likely influence mechanism or detriment.
Potential harms
- A traveller may select an unsuitable fare because a material restriction is absent from the comparison decision.
- A customer may buy unsuitable cover because a material limitation cannot inform the decision.
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 · Non-refundable condition appears after fare selection
A fictional rail booking page labels a fare “Flexible Saver” but places the fact that it is non-refundable inside a collapsed section reached only after passenger details.
Potential consumer harm: A traveller may select an unsuitable fare because a material restriction is absent from the comparison decision.
Illustrative example 2 · Major exclusion dispersed across tabs
A fictional repair plan headlines “Every appliance covered” but splits an exclusion for boilers across three collapsed help tabs reached only after booking.
Potential consumer harm: A customer may buy unsuitable cover because a material limitation cannot inform the decision.
Illustrative example 3 · Renewal term below the commit button
A learning app promotes a seven-day free trial. The annual charge and automatic renewal appear only below the fixed mobile purchase button and are never brought into view.
Potential consumer harm: The renewal liability is likely material, and its placement may make the disclosure ineffective or untimely. Subscription-specific disclosure rules will also need to be checked once they commence.
Illustrative example 4 · Critical exclusion dispersed across tabs
A home-services offer headlines 'all repairs included' but divides a major appliance exclusion across several collapsed help-centre tabs reached only after booking.
Potential consumer harm: The overall impression and inaccessible correction may be misleading now and may become relevant to sections 28B(6)(b) to (c) from commencement.
What is a fairer alternative?
Present material information clearly, prominently and at the point where it can affect the decision; do not rely on optional expansion or late disclosure.
Verified enforcement context
These are real matters identified from regulator or court records. Their stated posture and existing legal basis must not be relabelled as enforcement of provisions that commence in 2027.
Enforcement example · eDreams subscription pricing
The ACCC said a headline monthly Prime price did not adequately convey total annual cost. Procedural posture: Infringement notices and undertaking; the undertaking contains admissions, while notice payment alone is not an admission.
Why it is included: This is verified current-ACL context, not enforcement of provisions commencing in 2027.
Online travel agency eDreams pays penalties and gives undertaking over allegedly misleading subscription pricesEnforcement example · JustAnswer pricing representations
A prominent one-off amount was contrasted with a materially larger recurring subscription charge. Procedural posture: Federal Court orders following admissions.
Why it is included: This is verified current-ACL context, not enforcement of provisions commencing in 2027.
JustAnswer to pay $10m in penalties for misleading pricing representations and misleading affiliation claimsLegal and information status
How Australian law may apply
Information relevant to the decision is absent or presented so ineffectively that it is unlikely to inform the user at the decision point. A consequence that could change the decision is moved out of the comparison or commitment view, reduced in salience or split across remote disclosures. Sections 28B(6)(b) and (c) expressly identify non-disclosure and ineffective disclosure of material information. The word "may" matters: materiality, consumer context, manipulation or unreasonable distortion and likely detriment must be assessed rather than presumed. The new prohibition has not commenced, but existing ACL disclosure, misleading-conduct, price and contract rules may apply now. No final ACCC section 28B materiality or disclosure guide had been identified by the review date.
ACL section 28B(6)(b), inserted by the 2026 Act
Possible risk indicator
Failure to disclose material information is a non-exhaustive example that may be an unfair trading practice.
ACL section 28B(6)(c), inserted by the 2026 Act
Possible risk indicator
Complex, ineffective, unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous, untimely or overwhelming disclosure is another non-exhaustive example.
ACL sections 18 and 29
Current law
Existing provisions may already address an omission or presentation that creates a misleading overall impression or false representation.
Evidence layers and open questions
Applicable law, enforcement records, policy preparation, stakeholder input, editorial analysis and unknown future details remain visibly distinct.
Final Act mappingCommences 1 July 2027
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(6)(b), inserted by the 2026 Act: Failure to disclose material information is a non-exhaustive example that may be an unfair trading practice. ACL section 28B(6)(c), inserted by the 2026 Act: Complex, ineffective, unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous, untimely or overwhelming disclosure is another non-exhaustive example.
Existing ACLCurrent enforcement
ACL sections 18 and 29: Existing provisions may already address an omission or presentation that creates a misleading overall impression or false representation.
Verified enforcement contextCurrent enforcement
The regulator or court records cited in the examples concern existing law and retain their stated procedural posture. They are not enforcement of provisions commencing in 2027.
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
Present material information clearly, prominently and at the point where it can affect the decision; do not rely on optional expansion or late disclosure. This is editorial portal guidance, not a statutory duty, regulator safe harbour or compliance certificate.
Context matters
Context and boundary cases
- The information is plausibly material to a concrete decision.
- It is missing, hidden, low-salience, unclear, inaccessible, untimely or overwhelming.
- The deficiency is tied to a likely influence mechanism or detriment.
- Boundary to test: Purely optional detail with no plausible decision relevance
- Boundary to test: late mandatory charge or subscription term already classified under the more specific sneaking pattern for the same evidence
- Would the information affect price, duration, renewal, use, eligibility, cancellation or risk?
- Is it visible before the consumer becomes committed?
- Does the mobile view preserve prominence and meaning?
- Are headline claims corrected only by remote or contradictory fine print?
- Is the amount and structure of information usable rather than merely complete?
When a similar design can serve a legitimate purpose
- Purely optional detail with no plausible decision relevance
- late mandatory charge or subscription term already classified under the more specific sneaking pattern for the same evidence
Operational review
What teams should review
- Teams
- Do “Choose $64 fare” and “Review fare conditions” 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 “The information is plausibly material to a concrete decision”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “Purely optional detail with no plausible decision relevance”?
- Do “See full terms” and “Review coverage” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Capture the collapsed and expanded states plus the associated decision control; is “It is missing, hidden, low-salience, unclear, inaccessible, untimely or overwhelming” visible at the right time?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “late mandatory charge or subscription term already classified under the more specific sneaking pattern for the same evidence”?
- Which facts would make a reasonable consumer choose differently?
- Can the consumer encounter each material fact before the associated decision?
- Does the headline remain accurate without relying on fine print?
- Are disclosures understandable at ordinary zoom and on a small screen?
- Do complaints or refunds indicate a recurring misunderstanding?
Evidence to retain
- material-information inventory
- annotated journey showing disclosure timing
- responsive screenshots and accessibility checks
- copy and legal approval history
- complaint, cancellation and refund themes
- user-comprehension test results
- Annotated pricing 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
- 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
- Competition and Consumer Act 2010, including Schedule 2: Australian Consumer LawFederal Register of Legislation · Primary · checked 2026-09-14 · C2004A00109
- Online travel agency eDreams pays penalties and gives undertaking over allegedly misleading subscription pricesAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission · Primary · checked 2026-09-14
- JustAnswer to pay $10m in penalties for misleading pricing representations and misleading affiliation claimsAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission · Primary · checked 2026-09-14
- 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