Interface interference · Australia
Pressured upselling
Pressured upselling is a working label for this design mechanism: A more expensive or profitable option is made the practical focal choice through preselection, visual prominence or obscured lower-cost alternatives. 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 more expensive or profitable option is made the practical focal choice through preselection, visual prominence or obscured lower-cost alternatives. 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 more expensive or profitable option is made the practical focal choice through preselection, visual prominence or obscured lower-cost alternatives. Repeated prompts, unsupported risk framing or decoy value claims make keeping the existing or basic option feel unsafe, wasteful or incomplete.
Warning signs
- A lower-cost or less committed alternative exists.
- The higher-value option is preselected, materially more prominent or easier.
- The difference is not justified solely by the user's stated goal.
Potential harms
- Unsupported fear framing may push a subscriber toward a costlier plan they do not need.
- Repeated loss framing may pressure a traveller to add services they did not seek.
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 · Current plan framed as unsafe
A fictional renewal screen repeatedly warns that keeping the current tier will leave files “unsafe”, although the security controls are identical across tiers.
Potential consumer harm: Unsupported fear framing may push a subscriber toward a costlier plan they do not need.
Illustrative example 2 · Repeated upgrade framing around room-only booking
A fictional booking flow places three sequential upgrade panels before room-only continuation and describes the basic booking as “missing the complete trip”.
Potential consumer harm: Repeated loss framing may pressure a traveller to add services they did not seek.
Current plan framed as unsafe
A fictional renewal screen repeatedly warns that keeping the current tier will leave files “unsafe”, although the security controls are identical across tiers.
Protect every file now. Repeated warnings imply a security loss that the plan comparison does not support.. Displayed amount: $29. Upgrade for $29/month. Keep current $12 plan
Compare storage plans. Security is described accurately and the current plan remains an equal option.. Displayed amount: $12. Keep current $12 plan. Upgrade for $29/month. Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Keep current $12 plan” 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: “Repeated warnings imply a security loss that the plan comparison does not support.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Upgrade for $29/month” with “Keep current $12 plan”. Unsupported fear framing may push a subscriber toward a costlier plan they do not need.
What a fairer design does: Compare factual capacity and feature differences, keep the current plan equally usable and let the subscriber deliberately choose any upgrade.
Show annotated differences (4)
- Repeated warnings imply a security loss that the plan comparison does not support.Why this state matters: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the subscription decision. The problematic state shows: “Repeated warnings imply a security loss that the plan comparison does not support.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Upgrade for $29/month” with “Keep current $12 plan”. Unsupported fear framing may push a subscriber toward a costlier plan they do not need.
- Keep current $12 planReview prompt: Do “Upgrade for $29/month” and “Keep current $12 plan” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Security is described accurately and the current plan remains an equal option.Fairer design: Compare factual capacity and feature differences, keep the current plan equally usable and let the subscriber deliberately choose any upgrade.
- Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Keep current $12 plan” remain beside this choice.Review prompt: Place the compared prices, billing periods and material terms on one evidence sheet; where does it support “A lower-cost or less committed alternative exists”?
Review questions (3)
- Do “Upgrade for $29/month” and “Keep current $12 plan” 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 lower-cost or less committed alternative exists”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “Transparent recommendation based on declared needs with equal access to alternatives”?
Repeated upgrade framing around room-only booking
A fictional booking flow places three sequential upgrade panels before room-only continuation and describes the basic booking as “missing the complete trip”.
Complete your trip. Three separate panels frame room-only booking as an incomplete choice.. Amount affected: $95. Add extras package $95. Continue room-only
Choose optional extras once. Room-only remains visible and each add-on can be reviewed without loss framing.. Continue room-only. Add extras package $95. Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Continue room-only” 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: “Three separate panels frame room-only booking as an incomplete choice.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Add extras package $95” with “Continue room-only”. Repeated loss framing may pressure a traveller to add services they did not seek.
What a fairer design does: Present room-only continuation beside optional extras, describe each product factually and avoid repeating a declined offer.
Show annotated differences (4)
- Three separate panels frame room-only booking as an incomplete choice.Why this state matters: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the checkout decision. The problematic state shows: “Three separate panels frame room-only booking as an incomplete choice.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Add extras package $95” with “Continue room-only”. Repeated loss framing may pressure a traveller to add services they did not seek.
- Continue room-onlyReview prompt: Do “Add extras package $95” and “Continue room-only” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Room-only remains visible and each add-on can be reviewed without loss framing.Fairer design: Present room-only continuation beside optional extras, describe each product factually and avoid repeating a declined offer.
- Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Continue room-only” is activated.Review prompt: Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “The higher-value option is preselected, materially more prominent or easier”?
Review questions (3)
- Do “Add extras package $95” and “Continue room-only” 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 higher-value option is preselected, materially more prominent or easier”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “ordinary plan hierarchy with comparable presentation”?
What is a fairer alternative?
Present price and commitment alternatives comparably and avoid preselecting or obscuring the more expensive outcome.
Legal and information status
How Australian law may apply
A more expensive or profitable option is made the practical focal choice through preselection, visual prominence or obscured lower-cost alternatives. Repeated prompts, unsupported risk framing or decoy value claims make keeping the existing or basic option feel unsafe, wasteful or incomplete. 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 subscription and checkout journeys, the pressured upselling 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 subscription and checkout journeys, the pressured upselling 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
Present price and commitment alternatives comparably and avoid preselecting or obscuring the more expensive outcome. This is editorial portal guidance, not a statutory duty, regulator safe harbour or compliance certificate.
Context matters
Context and boundary cases
- A lower-cost or less committed alternative exists.
- The higher-value option is preselected, materially more prominent or easier.
- The difference is not justified solely by the user's stated goal.
- Boundary to test: Transparent recommendation based on declared needs with equal access to alternatives
- Boundary to test: ordinary plan hierarchy with comparable presentation
When a similar design can serve a legitimate purpose
- Transparent recommendation based on declared needs with equal access to alternatives
- ordinary plan hierarchy with comparable presentation
Operational review
What teams should review
- Teams
- Do “Upgrade for $29/month” and “Keep current $12 plan” 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 lower-cost or less committed alternative exists”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “Transparent recommendation based on declared needs with equal access to alternatives”?
- Do “Add extras package $95” and “Continue room-only” 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 higher-value option is preselected, materially more prominent or easier”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “ordinary plan hierarchy with comparable presentation”?
Evidence to retain
- Annotated subscription and checkout 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
- An Ontology of Dark Patterns KnowledgeGray et al.; ACM CHI 2024 · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · DOI 10.1145/3613904.3642436; arXiv:2309.09640
- Dark Patterns at Scale: Findings from a Crawl of 11K Shopping WebsitesMathur et al.; arXiv · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · arXiv:1907.07032
- 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