Interface interference · Australia
Misleading reference pricing
Misleading reference pricing is a working label for this design mechanism: A comparison or prior price creates an inaccurate or insufficiently explained impression of savings. 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 comparison or prior price creates an inaccurate or insufficiently explained impression of savings. 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 comparison or prior price creates an inaccurate or insufficiently explained impression of savings. A current price is evaluated against an unsupported or non-equivalent comparator, manufacturing a saving that can distort value and timing judgments.
Warning signs
- A current price is framed against a reference or discount claim.
- Arithmetic, comparison basis or external history is inconsistent, inaccurate or unverified.
- The anchor plausibly affects perceived value.
Potential harms
- The reference can create an unsupported impression of exceptional savings and rush comparison.
- Travellers may overvalue membership because the compared offers are not meaningfully equivalent.
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 · Permanent sale uses an invented “was” price
A fictional store shows “Was $180, now $79” even though the jacket has never been offered for $180 and sells at $79 throughout the season.
Potential consumer harm: The reference can create an unsupported impression of exceptional savings and rush comparison.
Illustrative example 2 · Member discount compares with unavailable tier
A fictional booking service calls $90 a “40% member saving” by comparing it with a $150 flexible fare that is not offered for the same dates or conditions.
Potential consumer harm: Travellers may overvalue membership because the compared offers are not meaningfully equivalent.
Permanent sale uses an invented “was” price
A fictional store shows “Was $180, now $79” even though the jacket has never been offered for $180 and sells at $79 throughout the season.
Weekend saving. An unsubstantiated former price makes the current price appear exceptional.. Displayed amount: $180. $79
Current price. The product is $79; any comparison states its verified basis and period.. Displayed amount: $79. Was $180 · now $79. Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “$79” remain beside this choice.
Why the first version can mislead: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the pricing decision. The problematic state shows: “An unsubstantiated former price makes the current price appear exceptional.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Was $180 · now $79” with “$79”. The reference can create an unsupported impression of exceptional savings and rush comparison.
What a fairer design does: Use a substantiated comparison basis, identify the period or comparator and remove savings claims that cannot be evidenced.
Show annotated differences (4)
- An unsubstantiated former price makes the current price appear exceptional.Why this state matters: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the pricing decision. The problematic state shows: “An unsubstantiated former price makes the current price appear exceptional.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Was $180 · now $79” with “$79”. The reference can create an unsupported impression of exceptional savings and rush comparison.
- $79Review prompt: Do “Was $180 · now $79” and “$79” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- The product is $79; any comparison states its verified basis and period.Fairer design: Use a substantiated comparison basis, identify the period or comparator and remove savings claims that cannot be evidenced.
- Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “$79” remain beside this choice.Review prompt: Place the compared prices, billing periods and material terms on one evidence sheet; where does it support “A current price is framed against a reference or discount claim”?
Review questions (3)
- Do “Was $180 · now $79” and “$79” 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 “A current price is framed against a reference or discount claim”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “Accurate, representative and clearly explained reference price”?
Member discount compares with unavailable tier
A fictional booking service calls $90 a “40% member saving” by comparing it with a $150 flexible fare that is not offered for the same dates or conditions.
Members save 40%. The comparator has different dates and conditions and is not purchasable in this search.. Displayed amount: $90. Member $90 · public $105
Like-for-like price comparison. The member and public fares share the same dates, room and cancellation terms.. Displayed amount: $90. $90 vs $150. Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Member $90 · public $105” remain beside this choice.
Why the first version can mislead: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the pricing decision. The problematic state shows: “The comparator has different dates and conditions and is not purchasable in this search.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “$90 vs $150” with “Member $90 · public $105”. Travellers may overvalue membership because the compared offers are not meaningfully equivalent.
What a fairer design does: Compare like-for-like offers and state the fare conditions, date and audience behind any saving.
Show annotated differences (4)
- The comparator has different dates and conditions and is not purchasable in this search.Why this state matters: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the pricing decision. The problematic state shows: “The comparator has different dates and conditions and is not purchasable in this search.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “$90 vs $150” with “Member $90 · public $105”. Travellers may overvalue membership because the compared offers are not meaningfully equivalent.
- Member $90 · public $105Review prompt: Do “$90 vs $150” and “Member $90 · public $105” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- The member and public fares share the same dates, room and cancellation terms.Fairer design: Compare like-for-like offers and state the fare conditions, date and audience behind any saving.
- Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Member $90 · public $105” remain beside this choice.Review prompt: Place the compared prices, billing periods and material terms on one evidence sheet; where does it support “Arithmetic, comparison basis or external history is inconsistent, inaccurate or unverified”?
Review questions (3)
- Do “$90 vs $150” and “Member $90 · public $105” 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 “Arithmetic, comparison basis or external history is inconsistent, inaccurate or unverified”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “mere display of two genuinely different product prices”?
What is a fairer alternative?
Use a truthful, representative comparison basis and explain the reference period or basis close to the claim.
Legal and information status
How Australian law may apply
A comparison or prior price creates an inaccurate or insufficiently explained impression of savings. A current price is evaluated against an unsupported or non-equivalent comparator, manufacturing a saving that can distort value and timing judgments. 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 pricing journeys, the misleading reference pricing 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 pricing journeys, the misleading reference pricing 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
Use a truthful, representative comparison basis and explain the reference period or basis close to the claim. This is editorial portal guidance, not a statutory duty, regulator safe harbour or compliance certificate.
Context matters
Context and boundary cases
- A current price is framed against a reference or discount claim.
- Arithmetic, comparison basis or external history is inconsistent, inaccurate or unverified.
- The anchor plausibly affects perceived value.
- Boundary to test: Accurate, representative and clearly explained reference price
- Boundary to test: mere display of two genuinely different product prices
When a similar design can serve a legitimate purpose
- Accurate, representative and clearly explained reference price
- mere display of two genuinely different product prices
Operational review
What teams should review
- Teams
- Do “Was $180 · now $79” and “$79” 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 “A current price is framed against a reference or discount claim”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “Accurate, representative and clearly explained reference price”?
- Do “$90 vs $150” and “Member $90 · public $105” 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 “Arithmetic, comparison basis or external history is inconsistent, inaccurate or unverified”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “mere display of two genuinely different product prices”?
Evidence to retain
- 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
- 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