Privileges business-favoured actions through visual, linguistic or structural presentation of choices and information.
Select one example to inspect the complete problematic and neutral HTML interfaces. These fictional comparisons support learning and review. The group name is not an EU legal category, and visual similarity alone establishes no infringement.
A fictional ticket seller offers a concert ticket only through a control that also adds a city travel pass, although the travel component is separately deliverable and not required for entry.
A fictional service offers a core plan only as a bundle with premium support and data migration, while implying those extras can be removed later although no controls exist.
A fictional provider presents twenty-seven plans with inconsistent feature names, billing periods and footnote structures but offers no grouping, filters or stable comparison view.
Consent purposes fragmented into dozens of toggles
Signup consent choicesSignup
A fictional signup consent screen lists forty overlapping purposes across five nested panels, with duplicated labels and no summary of the resulting state.
A fictional service describes the effect of cancellation through a 220-word clause containing undefined terms and cross-references immediately before confirmation.
A fictional shop presents product and basket information in English but switches mandatory fee and return text to another language on the payment screen.
A fictional software trial uses a large highlighted annual-upgrade card and places the existing monthly option as low-contrast text beneath testimonials.
Non-refundable condition appears after fare selection
Rail fare comparisonPricing
A fictional rail booking page labels a fare “Flexible Saver” but places the fact that it is non-refundable inside a collapsed section reached only after passenger details.
A fictional repair plan headlines “Every appliance covered” but splits an exclusion for boilers across three collapsed help tabs reached only after booking.
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.
A fictional streaming service opens with the annual plan selected and highlights a monthly-equivalent figure while the payable annual total is smaller.
A fictional renewal screen repeatedly warns that keeping the current tier will leave files “unsafe”, although the security controls are identical across tiers.
A fictional booking flow places three sequential upgrade panels before room-only continuation and describes the basic booking as “missing the complete trip”.
Unfair Commercial Practices DirectiveEuropean Parliament and Council of the European Union · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · Directive 2005/29/EC; CELEX 02005L0029-20220528
Dark commercial patternsOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 336
Digital Services ActEuropean Parliament and Council of the European Union · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · Regulation (EU) 2022/2065; CELEX 32022R2065
Consumer Rights DirectiveEuropean Parliament and Council of the European Union · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · Directive 2011/83/EU; CELEX 02011L0083-20220528
General Data Protection RegulationEuropean Parliament and Council of the European Union · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · Regulation (EU) 2016/679; CELEX 32016R0679