Intermediate currency
Unused tokens remain after a service booking
A fictional marketplace sells 100 tokens for €10 while a booking costs 84 tokens and no service costs a multiple that uses the remaining balance.
Individual HTML example · Obstruction
Gem bundle hides an item’s real-money cost
A fictional game prices an item at 1,350 gems but sells gems only in uneven bundles, with no euro equivalent near the purchase action.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real company and is not a legal finding or safe harbour.
Gem bundle hides an item’s real-money cost
A fictional game prices an item at 1,350 gems but sells gems only in uneven bundles, with no euro equivalent near the purchase action.
Legendary item · 1,350 gems. Gem bundles obscure that the smallest sufficient purchase costs €19.99.. Buy more gems. Review €19.99 bundle
Legendary item · 1,350 gems (€13.50 value). Balance, shortfall and actual bundle cost are visible before commitment.. Amount affected: €19.99: Review €19.99 bundle. Review €19.99 bundle. Buy more gems. Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Review €19.99 bundle” is activated.
Why the first version can mislead: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this in-game store example, the obstacle is: “Gem bundles obscure that the smallest sufficient purchase costs €19.99.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “Review €19.99 bundle” reaches the represented state. Players may struggle to understand the real cost and must buy more currency than the item requires.
What a fairer design does: Show the real-money equivalent, available balance and exact currency shortfall before purchase.
Show annotated differences (2)
Potentially problematic version
- Review €19.99 bundleIn “Gem bundle hides an item’s real-money cost”, this element shows how intermediate currency can shape the decision.
Neutral alternative
- Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Review €19.99 bundle” is activated.In “Gem bundle hides an item’s real-money cost”, this element keeps the clearer alternative visible at the same decision point.
Review questions (3)
- How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “Buy more gems” from the completed in-game store outcome?
- Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “The user exchanges real value for a proprietary unit or spends that unit”?
- Measure the same task through the clearest available route: does the effort difference persist once “Transparent one-to-one or prominently converted loyalty points” is accounted for?
Complete pattern context
How this example relates to Intermediate currency
A proprietary currency makes the real monetary cost or remaining value unnecessarily hard to understand. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
The full guide explains inclusion and exclusion criteria, harms, fair design principles, evidence questions and the relevant EU legal information layers. The example page isolates one scenario so it can be shared and discussed without reproducing the complete library on one page.
Continue comparing
Related examples
Open this example
Account deletion obstruction
Deactivation presented as deletion
A fictional platform labels a control “Delete account”, but the confirmation only hides the profile and leaves data and reactivation available indefinitely.
Account deletion obstruction
Deletion buried behind an unsupported ticket
A fictional retailer places account deletion behind six help pages and requires a support ticket containing an order number even for users who never ordered.
Sources and provenance for this example
Evidence base
Sources
- Dark commercial patternsOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · OECD Digital Economy Papers No. 336
- Unfair Commercial Practices DirectiveEuropean Parliament and Council of the European Union · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · Directive 2005/29/EC; CELEX 02005L0029-20220528