Obstruction · Australia
Obstructed alternative
Obstructed alternative is a working label for this design mechanism: A relevant alternative within the current decision is hidden, blocked or made materially harder than the business-favoured action. 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
- Obstruction
- Also known as
- Journey stages
Definition
What is this pattern?
A relevant alternative within the current decision is hidden, blocked or made materially harder than the business-favoured action. 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 relevant alternative within the current decision is hidden, blocked or made materially harder than the business-favoured action. A real alternative remains technically present but is buried, de-emphasised or placed behind extra discovery effort compared with the favoured route.
Warning signs
- The options address the same decision.
- The alternative is available in principle but requires additional discovery, interaction or recovery from obstruction.
- The asymmetry is not necessary for security, safety or the user's stated task.
Potential harms
- A viable alternative becomes materially harder to discover than the business-preferred account route.
- The asymmetric path can deter a user from reaching a genuine lower-data choice.
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 · Guest checkout hidden behind account copy
A fictional shop displays account creation as the only button and places guest checkout inside a collapsed paragraph titled “Other information”.
Potential consumer harm: A viable alternative becomes materially harder to discover than the business-preferred account route.
Illustrative example 2 · Rejecting optional tracking needs multiple panels
A fictional consent layer accepts optional tracking in one click but requires opening three panels and disabling twelve switches to refuse it.
Potential consumer harm: The asymmetric path can deter a user from reaching a genuine lower-data choice.
Guest checkout hidden behind account copy
A fictional shop displays account creation as the only button and places guest checkout inside a collapsed paragraph titled “Other information”.
Save time with an account. The visible action creates an account; the guest path is buried in unrelated copy.. Selected: Create account. Not selected: Continue as guest
Choose a checkout route. Guest checkout and optional account creation appear together.. Not selected: Continue as guest. Not selected: Create account. Choice consequences, expanded: The consequence of selecting “Continue as guest” is displayed beside the option.
Why the first version can mislead: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this retail basket example, the obstacle is: “The visible action creates an account; the guest path is buried in unrelated copy.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “Continue as guest” reaches the represented state. A viable alternative becomes materially harder to discover than the business-preferred account route.
What a fairer design does: Present guest and account routes together with clear consequences and comparable interaction effort.
Show annotated differences (4)
- The visible action creates an account; the guest path is buried in unrelated copy.Why this state matters: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this retail basket example, the obstacle is: “The visible action creates an account; the guest path is buried in unrelated copy.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “Continue as guest” reaches the represented state. A viable alternative becomes materially harder to discover than the business-preferred account route.
- Not selected: Continue as guestReview prompt: How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “Create account” from the completed retail basket outcome?
- Guest checkout and optional account creation appear together.Fairer design: Present guest and account routes together with clear consequences and comparable interaction effort.
- Choice consequences, expanded: The consequence of selecting “Continue as guest” is displayed beside the option.Review prompt: Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “The options address the same decision”?
Review questions (3)
- How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “Create account” from the completed retail basket outcome?
- Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “The options address the same decision”?
- Measure the same task through the clearest available route: does the effort difference persist once “Different actions with genuinely different complexity” is accounted for?
Rejecting optional tracking needs multiple panels
A fictional consent layer accepts optional tracking in one click but requires opening three panels and disabling twelve switches to refuse it.
Your privacy options. Acceptance is immediate; refusal is distributed across three nested screens.. Selected: Accept all. Not selected: Reject optional tracking
Choose optional tracking. Accept all, reject optional and customise are visible at the same level.. Not selected: Reject optional tracking. Not selected: Accept all. Choice consequences, expanded: The consequence of selecting “Reject optional tracking” is displayed beside the option.
Why the first version can mislead: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this cookie preferences example, the obstacle is: “Acceptance is immediate; refusal is distributed across three nested screens.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “Reject optional tracking” reaches the represented state. The asymmetric path can deter a user from reaching a genuine lower-data choice.
What a fairer design does: Offer equally direct accept, reject and customise paths while preserving granular settings for users who want them.
Show annotated differences (4)
- Acceptance is immediate; refusal is distributed across three nested screens.Why this state matters: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this cookie preferences example, the obstacle is: “Acceptance is immediate; refusal is distributed across three nested screens.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “Reject optional tracking” reaches the represented state. The asymmetric path can deter a user from reaching a genuine lower-data choice.
- Not selected: Reject optional trackingReview prompt: How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “Accept all” from the completed cookie preferences outcome?
- Accept all, reject optional and customise are visible at the same level.Fairer design: Offer equally direct accept, reject and customise paths while preserving granular settings for users who want them.
- Choice consequences, expanded: The consequence of selecting “Reject optional tracking” is displayed beside the option.Review prompt: Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “The alternative is available in principle but requires additional discovery, interaction or recovery from obstruction”?
Review questions (3)
- How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “Accept all” from the completed cookie preferences outcome?
- Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “The alternative is available in principle but requires additional discovery, interaction or recovery from obstruction”?
- Measure the same task through the clearest available route: does the effort difference persist once “exit from an existing subscription, which is classified as hard to cancel” is accounted for?
What is a fairer alternative?
Place equivalent alternatives in the same decision context with comparable discoverability and no unnecessary steps.
Legal and information status
How Australian law may apply
A relevant alternative within the current decision is hidden, blocked or made materially harder than the business-favoured action. A real alternative remains technically present but is buried, de-emphasised or placed behind extra discovery effort compared with the favoured route. 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 signup journeys, the obstructed alternative mechanism may warrant review where it manipulates a consumer or unreasonably distorts the decision environment and causes, or is likely to cause, detriment. The obstruction 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 obstruction 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 signup journeys, the obstructed alternative mechanism may warrant review where it manipulates a consumer or unreasonably distorts the decision environment and causes, or is likely to cause, detriment. The obstruction 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
Place equivalent alternatives in the same decision context with comparable discoverability and no unnecessary steps. This is editorial portal guidance, not a statutory duty, regulator safe harbour or compliance certificate.
Context matters
Context and boundary cases
- The options address the same decision.
- The alternative is available in principle but requires additional discovery, interaction or recovery from obstruction.
- The asymmetry is not necessary for security, safety or the user's stated task.
- Boundary to test: Different actions with genuinely different complexity
- Boundary to test: exit from an existing subscription, which is classified as hard to cancel
- Boundary to test: alternative unavailable for a disclosed eligibility reason
When a similar design can serve a legitimate purpose
- Different actions with genuinely different complexity
- exit from an existing subscription, which is classified as hard to cancel
- alternative unavailable for a disclosed eligibility reason
Operational review
What teams should review
- Teams
- How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “Create account” from the completed retail basket outcome?
- Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “The options address the same decision”?
- Measure the same task through the clearest available route: does the effort difference persist once “Different actions with genuinely different complexity” is accounted for?
- How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “Accept all” from the completed cookie preferences outcome?
- Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “The alternative is available in principle but requires additional discovery, interaction or recovery from obstruction”?
- Measure the same task through the clearest available route: does the effort difference persist once “exit from an existing subscription, which is classified as hard to cancel” is accounted for?
Evidence to retain
- Annotated checkout and signup 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