Interface interference · Australia
Preselection and biased defaults
The final Act does not prohibit every preselected option as a standalone category. A default can, however, contribute to manipulation or unreasonable distortion under section 28B where the complete test and likely detriment are present. Other rules can apply now, including price, misleading-conduct, consent or sector-specific requirements, depending on the option.
- Family
- Interface interference
- Also known as
- Journey stages
Definition
What is this pattern?
A business-favoured option with a plausible adverse consequence is active before a deliberate user 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
A business-favoured option with a plausible adverse consequence is active before a deliberate user choice. The system chooses a consequential option before the user acts, allowing inattention or momentum to preserve a paid, data-sharing or longer-term state.
Warning signs
- The state is selected at first relevant presentation.
- The default benefits the business or increases cost, data use, tracking or commitment.
- The user must act to avoid the consequence.
Potential harms
- The shopper may pay for an add-on through inattention rather than active agreement.
- A user may commit to a larger upfront payment without making an active billing-period 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 · Paid protection preselected in basket
A fictional retailer preselects a $12 protection plan and includes it in the total before the shopper has made a distinct choice.
Potential consumer harm: The shopper may pay for an add-on through inattention rather than active agreement.
Illustrative example 2 · Annual plan active by default
A fictional streaming service opens with the annual plan selected and highlights a monthly-equivalent figure while the payable annual total is smaller.
Potential consumer harm: A user may commit to a larger upfront payment without making an active billing-period choice.
Illustrative example 3 · Preselected paid protection
A retailer pre-ticks a $12 product-protection add-on and includes it in the checkout total without a distinct confirmation.
Potential consumer harm: The default creates a direct financial consequence and may exploit inattention. Section 28B and current price or misleading-conduct rules require contextual analysis.
Illustrative example 4 · Annual plan selected over monthly plan
A service preselects a prepaid annual plan, displays its monthly equivalent most prominently and places the payable annual total in smaller text.
Potential consumer harm: The combination of default and price hierarchy may cause a consumer to accept a larger commitment than understood.
Paid protection preselected in basket
A fictional retailer preselects a $12 protection plan and includes it in the total before the shopper has made a distinct choice.
Order total · $211. A $12 protection plan is already active in the basket.. Protection included. Add protection for $12
Order total · $199. Protection is optional, unselected and priced beside its control.. Amount affected: $12. Add protection for $12. Protection included. Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Add protection for $12” is activated.
Why the first version can mislead: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the checkout decision. The problematic state shows: “A $12 protection plan is already active in the basket.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Protection included” with “Add protection for $12”. The shopper may pay for an add-on through inattention rather than active agreement.
What a fairer design does: Leave paid extras unselected, describe their price and require a deliberate choice before adding them.
Show annotated differences (4)
- A $12 protection plan is already active in the basket.Why this state matters: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the checkout decision. The problematic state shows: “A $12 protection plan is already active in the basket.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Protection included” with “Add protection for $12”. The shopper may pay for an add-on through inattention rather than active agreement.
- Add protection for $12Review prompt: Do “Protection included” and “Add protection for $12” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Protection is optional, unselected and priced beside its control.Fairer design: Leave paid extras unselected, describe their price and require a deliberate choice before adding them.
- Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Add protection for $12” is activated.Review prompt: Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “The state is selected at first relevant presentation”?
Review questions (3)
- Do “Protection included” and “Add protection for $12” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “The state is selected at first relevant presentation”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “Consumer-protective or neutral default”?
Annual plan active by default
A fictional streaming service opens with the annual plan selected and highlights a monthly-equivalent figure while the payable annual total is smaller.
Choose your plan. Annual billing is active before the user chooses and its total is visually secondary.. Selected: Annual selected. Not selected: Select monthly or annual
Choose a billing period. No option is preselected; monthly and annual totals appear beside each radio control.. Not selected: Select monthly or annual. Not selected: Annual selected. Choice consequences, expanded: The consequence of selecting “Select monthly or annual” is displayed beside the option.
Why the first version can mislead: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the subscription decision. The problematic state shows: “Annual billing is active before the user chooses and its total is visually secondary.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Annual selected” with “Select monthly or annual”. A user may commit to a larger upfront payment without making an active billing-period choice.
What a fairer design does: Start with no paid plan selected and show both payable totals and billing periods consistently.
Show annotated differences (4)
- Annual billing is active before the user chooses and its total is visually secondary.Why this state matters: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the subscription decision. The problematic state shows: “Annual billing is active before the user chooses and its total is visually secondary.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Annual selected” with “Select monthly or annual”. A user may commit to a larger upfront payment without making an active billing-period choice.
- Not selected: Select monthly or annualReview prompt: Do “Annual selected” and “Select monthly or annual” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- No option is preselected; monthly and annual totals appear beside each radio control.Fairer design: Start with no paid plan selected and show both payable totals and billing periods consistently.
- Choice consequences, expanded: The consequence of selecting “Select monthly or annual” is displayed beside the option.Review prompt: Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “The default benefits the business or increases cost, data use, tracking or commitment”?
Review questions (3)
- Do “Annual selected” and “Select monthly or annual” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “The default benefits the business or increases cost, data use, tracking or commitment”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “state restored from a prior explicit user choice”?
What is a fairer alternative?
Use a neutral or consumer-protective default and require affirmative selection for added cost, data use, tracking or commitment.
Legal and information status
How Australian law may apply
A business-favoured option with a plausible adverse consequence is active before a deliberate user choice. The system chooses a consequential option before the user acts, allowing inattention or momentum to preserve a paid, data-sharing or longer-term state. Preselection is a UX taxonomy term, not a named section 28B example. Analyse whether the default, surrounding disclosure, visual hierarchy and reversal path manipulate the consumer or unreasonably distort the decision environment, and whether financial or other detriment is caused or likely. Existing ACL pricing and misleading-conduct provisions may apply now where a default adds cost or creates a false overall impression. No final Australian regulator safe harbour for default design had been identified by the review date.
ACL section 28B(2), inserted by the 2026 Act
Possible risk indicator
Supplies the complete contextual test from commencement.
ACL section 28B(6)(c) to (d), inserted by the 2026 Act
Possible risk indicator
Ineffective material disclosure and pressure or obstruction through design may be relevant non-exhaustive examples.
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(2), inserted by the 2026 Act: Supplies the complete contextual test from commencement. ACL section 28B(6)(c) to (d), inserted by the 2026 Act: Ineffective material disclosure and pressure or obstruction through design may be relevant non-exhaustive examples.
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 neutral or consumer-protective default and require affirmative selection for added cost, data use, tracking or commitment. This is editorial portal guidance, not a statutory duty, regulator safe harbour or compliance certificate.
Context matters
Context and boundary cases
- The state is selected at first relevant presentation.
- The default benefits the business or increases cost, data use, tracking or commitment.
- The user must act to avoid the consequence.
- Boundary to test: Consumer-protective or neutral default
- Boundary to test: state restored from a prior explicit user choice
- Does the default add price, commitment, data use or another material consequence?
- Is the default clearly visible and explained before commitment?
- Would the consumer reasonably expect no selection until they act?
- How easy is it to change or reverse the selection?
- Is the default justified by consumer benefit or primarily trader conversion?
- Does the design exploit inattention or accessibility constraints?
When a similar design can serve a legitimate purpose
- Consumer-protective or neutral default
- state restored from a prior explicit user choice
Operational review
What teams should review
- Teams
- Do “Protection included” and “Add protection for $12” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “The state is selected at first relevant presentation”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “Consumer-protective or neutral default”?
- Do “Annual selected” and “Select monthly or annual” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “The default benefits the business or increases cost, data use, tracking or commitment”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “state restored from a prior explicit user choice”?
- What changes if the consumer takes no action?
- Does a default add cost or commitment?
- Can the consumer identify the selected state and reverse it before purchase?
- Are actual billing amount and period at least as clear as an equivalent-rate claim?
- What evidence shows the default benefits rather than surprises users?
Evidence to retain
- default-state inventory
- decision record for each material default
- screenshots before and after selection
- price and billing copy approvals
- removal, refund and complaint data
- accessibility interaction tests
- Annotated checkout 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