Nagging · Australia
Repeated prompting
Repeated prompting is a working label for this design mechanism: A business-favoured request repeatedly interrupts the user after decline, dismissal or non-response without a durable way to stop it. 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
- Nagging
- Also known as
- Journey stages
Definition
What is this pattern?
A business-favoured request repeatedly interrupts the user after decline, dismissal or non-response without a durable way to stop it. 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 request repeatedly interrupts the user after decline, dismissal or non-response without a durable way to stop it. Refusal is stored only briefly while acceptance would be durable, allowing repeated interruption costs to wear down a choice already made.
Warning signs
- The prompt purpose is materially the same across occurrences.
- The user previously declined, dismissed or ignored it.
- Recurrence exceeds a configured reasonable observation rule and creates plausible pressure or time cost.
Potential harms
- Repeated interruption can wear down a refusal and prevent ordinary use of the service.
- A traveller may accept simply to stop repeated interruptions or may believe the earlier refusal was ineffective.
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 · Notification request returns on every screen
A fictional app shows the same full-screen notification request after the user declines, then repeats it on each of the next four screens.
Potential consumer harm: Repeated interruption can wear down a refusal and prevent ordinary use of the service.
Illustrative example 2 · Declined add-on repeatedly reappears
A fictional booking journey restores a previously declined insurance offer at passenger details, payment and final confirmation.
Potential consumer harm: A traveller may accept simply to stop repeated interruptions or may believe the earlier refusal was ineffective.
Notification request returns on every screen
A fictional app shows the same full-screen notification request after the user declines, then repeats it on each of the next four screens.
Turn on notifications. The request returns immediately after every decline.. Not now. Continue without notifications
Notifications remain off. The app records the refusal and explains where the setting can be changed later.. Continue without notifications. Not now. What happens next, expanded: Activating “Continue without notifications” produces the outcome stated on the control.
Why the first version can mislead: The user’s earlier refusal loses effect while the request keeps interrupting the signup journey. The practical influence comes from recurrence, not from one isolated prompt: “The request returns immediately after every decline.” Repeated interruption can wear down a refusal and prevent ordinary use of the service.
What a fairer design does: Respect the decision for a meaningful period and keep any later change available in settings.
Show annotated differences (4)
- The request returns immediately after every decline.Why this state matters: The user’s earlier refusal loses effect while the request keeps interrupting the signup journey. The practical influence comes from recurrence, not from one isolated prompt: “The request returns immediately after every decline.” Repeated interruption can wear down a refusal and prevent ordinary use of the service.
- Continue without notificationsReview prompt: Which event causes “Not now” to return after refusal, and how long does the product persist that refusal?
- The app records the refusal and explains where the setting can be changed later.Fairer design: Respect the decision for a meaningful period and keep any later change available in settings.
- What happens next, expanded: Activating “Continue without notifications” produces the outcome stated on the control.Review prompt: Can the dialog be dismissed, what action does each control trigger, and what later state confirms or contradicts “The prompt purpose is materially the same across occurrences”?
Review questions (3)
- Which event causes “Not now” to return after refusal, and how long does the product persist that refusal?
- Can the dialog be dismissed, what action does each control trigger, and what later state confirms or contradicts “The prompt purpose is materially the same across occurrences”?
- After an explicit refusal, when may the prompt legitimately return, and how would that changed context remain distinct from “Required safety or legal notice”?
Declined add-on repeatedly reappears
A fictional booking journey restores a previously declined insurance offer at passenger details, payment and final confirmation.
Add insurance before continuing. The same rejected extra blocks three later checkout steps.. Amount affected: $24. Add $24 insurance. Continue to payment
Insurance declined. The decision persists and checkout continues without another blocking prompt.. Continue to payment. Add $24 insurance. Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Continue to payment” is activated.
Why the first version can mislead: The user’s earlier refusal loses effect while the request keeps interrupting the checkout journey. The practical influence comes from recurrence, not from one isolated prompt: “The same rejected extra blocks three later checkout steps.” A traveller may accept simply to stop repeated interruptions or may believe the earlier refusal was ineffective.
What a fairer design does: Persist the refusal throughout the transaction and provide one optional, non-blocking way to reconsider.
Show annotated differences (4)
- The same rejected extra blocks three later checkout steps.Why this state matters: The user’s earlier refusal loses effect while the request keeps interrupting the checkout journey. The practical influence comes from recurrence, not from one isolated prompt: “The same rejected extra blocks three later checkout steps.” A traveller may accept simply to stop repeated interruptions or may believe the earlier refusal was ineffective.
- Continue to paymentReview prompt: Which event causes “Add $24 insurance” to return after refusal, and how long does the product persist that refusal?
- The decision persists and checkout continues without another blocking prompt.Fairer design: Persist the refusal throughout the transaction and provide one optional, non-blocking way to reconsider.
- Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Continue to payment” is activated.Review prompt: Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “The user previously declined, dismissed or ignored it”?
Review questions (3)
- Which event causes “Add $24 insurance” to return after refusal, and how long does the product persist that refusal?
- Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “The user previously declined, dismissed or ignored it”?
- After an explicit refusal, when may the prompt legitimately return, and how would that changed context remain distinct from “materially changed request triggered by a new user action”?
What is a fairer alternative?
Respect decline and dismissal, provide a durable preference, and limit reminders to justified, transparent intervals.
Legal and information status
How Australian law may apply
A business-favoured request repeatedly interrupts the user after decline, dismissal or non-response without a durable way to stop it. Refusal is stored only briefly while acceptance would be durable, allowing repeated interruption costs to wear down a choice already made. 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 signup and checkout journeys, the repeated prompting mechanism may warrant review where it manipulates a consumer or unreasonably distorts the decision environment and causes, or is likely to cause, detriment. The nagging 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 nagging 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 signup and checkout journeys, the repeated prompting mechanism may warrant review where it manipulates a consumer or unreasonably distorts the decision environment and causes, or is likely to cause, detriment. The nagging 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
Respect decline and dismissal, provide a durable preference, and limit reminders to justified, transparent intervals. This is editorial portal guidance, not a statutory duty, regulator safe harbour or compliance certificate.
Context matters
Context and boundary cases
- The prompt purpose is materially the same across occurrences.
- The user previously declined, dismissed or ignored it.
- Recurrence exceeds a configured reasonable observation rule and creates plausible pressure or time cost.
- Boundary to test: Required safety or legal notice
- Boundary to test: materially changed request triggered by a new user action
- Boundary to test: one reminder after a long and relevant interval
When a similar design can serve a legitimate purpose
- Required safety or legal notice
- materially changed request triggered by a new user action
- one reminder after a long and relevant interval
Operational review
What teams should review
- Teams
- Which event causes “Not now” to return after refusal, and how long does the product persist that refusal?
- Can the dialog be dismissed, what action does each control trigger, and what later state confirms or contradicts “The prompt purpose is materially the same across occurrences”?
- After an explicit refusal, when may the prompt legitimately return, and how would that changed context remain distinct from “Required safety or legal notice”?
- Which event causes “Add $24 insurance” to return after refusal, and how long does the product persist that refusal?
- Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “The user previously declined, dismissed or ignored it”?
- After an explicit refusal, when may the prompt legitimately return, and how would that changed context remain distinct from “materially changed request triggered by a new user action”?
Evidence to retain
- Annotated signup 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
- 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