Interface interference · Australia
False hierarchy
False hierarchy is a working label for this design mechanism: Parallel options are presented as if one were hierarchically primary, giving a business-favoured option materially greater visual or interactive prominence. 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?
Parallel options are presented as if one were hierarchically primary, giving a business-favoured option materially greater visual or interactive prominence. 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
Parallel options are presented as if one were hierarchically primary, giving a business-favoured option materially greater visual or interactive prominence. Parallel outcomes receive unequal size, contrast, position or affordance, making the favoured route feel like the primary action rather than one substantive option among peers.
Warning signs
- Two or more options address the same decision.
- The business-favoured option is identified with evidence.
- Measured prominence differs across at least two independent visual or affordance signals.
Potential harms
- People may overlook a genuine lower-data option because the visual hierarchy favours acceptance.
- A subscriber may enter a longer commitment without noticing the viable monthly alternative.
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 · Consent choices with unequal prominence
A fictional service displays a full-width coloured “Accept all” button while “Use necessary data only” is a faint text link after several paragraphs.
Potential consumer harm: People may overlook a genuine lower-data option because the visual hierarchy favours acceptance.
Illustrative example 2 · Annual upgrade dominates monthly continuation
A fictional software trial uses a large highlighted annual-upgrade card and places the existing monthly option as low-contrast text beneath testimonials.
Potential consumer harm: A subscriber may enter a longer commitment without noticing the viable monthly alternative.
Consent choices with unequal prominence
A fictional service displays a full-width coloured “Accept all” button while “Use necessary data only” is a faint text link after several paragraphs.
Choose your privacy settings. Acceptance dominates the panel and the lower-data route is visually detached.. Selected: Accept all. Not selected: Use necessary data only
Choose your privacy settings. Necessary-only and optional choices are visible together with equal clarity.. Not selected: Use necessary data only. Not selected: Accept all. Choice consequences, expanded: The consequence of selecting “Use necessary data only” is displayed beside the option.
Why the first version can mislead: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the signup decision. The problematic state shows: “Acceptance dominates the panel and the lower-data route is visually detached.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Accept all” with “Use necessary data only”. People may overlook a genuine lower-data option because the visual hierarchy favours acceptance.
What a fairer design does: Give materially different privacy choices stable labels, comparable prominence and concise consequences.
Show annotated differences (4)
- Acceptance dominates the panel and the lower-data route is visually detached.Why this state matters: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the signup decision. The problematic state shows: “Acceptance dominates the panel and the lower-data route is visually detached.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Accept all” with “Use necessary data only”. People may overlook a genuine lower-data option because the visual hierarchy favours acceptance.
- Not selected: Use necessary data onlyReview prompt: Do “Accept all” and “Use necessary data only” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Necessary-only and optional choices are visible together with equal clarity.Fairer design: Give materially different privacy choices stable labels, comparable prominence and concise consequences.
- Choice consequences, expanded: The consequence of selecting “Use necessary data only” is displayed beside the option.Review prompt: Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “Two or more options address the same decision”?
Review questions (3)
- Do “Accept all” and “Use necessary data only” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “Two or more options address the same decision”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “Primary progress versus back navigation that does not represent parallel substantive outcomes”?
Annual upgrade dominates monthly continuation
A fictional software trial uses a large highlighted annual-upgrade card and places the existing monthly option as low-contrast text beneath testimonials.
Recommended annual plan. The existing monthly path is separated and de-emphasised.. Displayed amount: $240. Choose monthly or annual
Compare billing options. Annual and monthly prices, commitments and controls receive comparable treatment.. Choose monthly or annual. $240 billed now. Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Choose monthly or annual” remain beside this choice.
Why the first version can mislead: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the subscription decision. The problematic state shows: “The existing monthly path is separated and de-emphasised.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “$240 billed now” with “Choose monthly or annual”. A subscriber may enter a longer commitment without noticing the viable monthly alternative.
What a fairer design does: Show annual and monthly options together with total price, billing period and equivalent controls.
Show annotated differences (4)
- The existing monthly path is separated and de-emphasised.Why this state matters: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the subscription decision. The problematic state shows: “The existing monthly path is separated and de-emphasised.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “$240 billed now” with “Choose monthly or annual”. A subscriber may enter a longer commitment without noticing the viable monthly alternative.
- Choose monthly or annualReview prompt: Do “$240 billed now” and “Choose monthly or annual” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Annual and monthly prices, commitments and controls receive comparable treatment.Fairer design: Show annual and monthly options together with total price, billing period and equivalent controls.
- Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Choose monthly or annual” remain beside this choice.Review prompt: Place the compared prices, billing periods and material terms on one evidence sheet; where does it support “The business-favoured option is identified with evidence”?
Review questions (3)
- Do “$240 billed now” and “Choose monthly or annual” 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 business-favoured option is identified with evidence”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “visual difference with no identifiable business-favoured consequence”?
What is a fairer alternative?
Present parallel choices with comparable visual weight, affordance and accessibility, especially where outcomes differ in cost, privacy or commitment.
Legal and information status
How Australian law may apply
Parallel options are presented as if one were hierarchically primary, giving a business-favoured option materially greater visual or interactive prominence. Parallel outcomes receive unequal size, contrast, position or affordance, making the favoured route feel like the primary action rather than one substantive option among peers. Section 28B(2) contains the operative, cumulative test. The final Act does not place "unreasonably" before "manipulate"; it qualifies only the distortion limb. Section 28B(6)(d) says that creating an environment, including through design elements, that places unreasonable pressure on a consumer or unreasonably obstructs a decision is an example of conduct that may satisfy the prohibition. Before commencement, misleading or deceptive conduct, false representations and other existing ACL provisions may already apply to particular designs. An ACCC enforcement priority is not an early commencement of section 28B. Dedicated ACCC implementation guidance had not been identified by the review date.
ACL section 28B(1) to (2), inserted by the 2026 Act
Express rule
Prohibits the practice only where consumer connection, manipulation or unreasonable distortion, and likely detriment are all present.
ACL section 28B(6)(d), inserted by the 2026 Act
Possible risk indicator
Provides a non-exhaustive, non-per-se example concerning pressure or obstruction in a decision environment, including digital design.
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
ACL section 28B(1) to (2), inserted by the 2026 Act: Prohibits the practice only where consumer connection, manipulation or unreasonable distortion, and likely detriment are all present.
Possible general-test applicationCommences 1 July 2027
ACL section 28B(6)(d), inserted by the 2026 Act: Provides a non-exhaustive, non-per-se example concerning pressure or obstruction in a decision environment, including digital design.
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
Present parallel choices with comparable visual weight, affordance and accessibility, especially where outcomes differ in cost, privacy or commitment. This is editorial portal guidance, not a statutory duty, regulator safe harbour or compliance certificate.
Context matters
Context and boundary cases
- Two or more options address the same decision.
- The business-favoured option is identified with evidence.
- Measured prominence differs across at least two independent visual or affordance signals.
- Boundary to test: Primary progress versus back navigation that does not represent parallel substantive outcomes
- Boundary to test: visual difference with no identifiable business-favoured consequence
- What decision is the consumer being asked to make?
- Does visual hierarchy, sequence, repetition or friction steer toward the trader's preferred result?
- Can the consumer identify and choose a neutral alternative without disproportionate effort?
- Is pressure real and time-limited, or manufactured by the interface?
- What financial, time, privacy or other detriment could result?
- Would mobile, accessibility or language constraints intensify the effect?
When a similar design can serve a legitimate purpose
- Primary progress versus back navigation that does not represent parallel substantive outcomes
- visual difference with no identifiable business-favoured consequence
Operational review
What teams should review
- Teams
- Do “Accept all” and “Use necessary data only” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “Two or more options address the same decision”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “Primary progress versus back navigation that does not represent parallel substantive outcomes”?
- Do “$240 billed now” and “Choose monthly or annual” 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 business-favoured option is identified with evidence”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “visual difference with no identifiable business-favoured consequence”?
- What neutral option would a consumer reasonably expect here, and can they find it?
- Does any pressure claim reflect a real operational constraint?
- Do interaction logs reveal repeated backtracking, accidental selection or immediate reversal?
- Could the journey cause detriment even if the price disclosure is literally accurate?
- Has the mobile and assistive-technology experience been reviewed?
Evidence to retain
- annotated screenshots for each responsive breakpoint
- design-system component states and copy variants
- inventory or reservation logic supporting urgency claims
- usability-test protocol and findings
- funnel, reversal and complaint data
- approval record linking design choices to reviewed risks
- Annotated signup and subscription 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
- Manipulative conduct in the digital economy, pricing claims and competition in essential services among ACCC priorities for year aheadAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission · Primary · checked 2026-08-09
- 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