Popularity claims
Bestseller badge follows margin rather than sales
A fictional marketplace assigns “Bestseller” to whichever item yields the highest commission, regardless of units sold.
Individual HTML example · Social proof
“Most popular” has no defined metric
A fictional service labels its highest-margin plan “Most popular” without recording sales, selection period or the population being measured.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real company and is not a legal finding or safe harbour.
“Most popular” has no defined metric
A fictional service labels its highest-margin plan “Most popular” without recording sales, selection period or the population being measured.
Most popular. No population, period or selection measure supports the badge.. Choose Pro. Compare Pro features
Plan comparison. Feature and price differences replace the unsupported popularity cue.. Compare Pro features. Choose Pro. Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Compare Pro features” remain beside this choice.
Why the first version can mislead: The interface asks the user to rely on other people’s behaviour or approval. The cue “Choose Pro” has persuasive meaning only if its population, period, metric and relationship match the represented claim. The panel instead says: “No population, period or selection measure supports the badge.” The badge may steer users using an unsupported impression of collective preference.
What a fairer design does: Use the claim only with a defined, current and supportable metric, or use a factual feature label instead.
Show annotated differences (2)
Potentially problematic version
- Compare Pro featuresIn ““Most popular” has no defined metric”, this element shows how popularity claims can shape the decision.
Neutral alternative
- Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Compare Pro features” remain beside this choice.In ““Most popular” has no defined metric”, this element keeps the clearer alternative visible at the same decision point.
Review questions (3)
- Which source record substantiates “Choose Pro”, including its population, period, metric and any commercial relationship?
- Place the compared prices, billing periods and material terms on one evidence sheet; where does it support “The claim asserts relative or aggregate popularity”?
- Can the claim be reproduced from a defined population and period, or does the evidence instead fit “Individual testimonial”?
Complete pattern context
How this example relates to Popularity claims
Aggregate popularity or approval is presented to steer a choice where the metric, population, period or basis is unclear or unsupported. 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
Activity messages
Randomised recent-purchase notification
A fictional store displays “12 people bought this in the last hour” using a random number unrelated to completed orders.
Activity messages
Fabricated named signup notification
A fictional course page rotates messages such as “Mia from Berlin just enrolled” using invented names and locations rather than completed enrolments.
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