Testimonials or endorsements
Paid creator recommendation lacks disclosure
A fictional creator calls a skincare product a personal favourite and links to purchase without disclosing payment until the bottom of a collapsed caption.
Individual HTML example · Social proof
Employee review presented as independent expertise
A fictional software company publishes a five-star quote from its product manager under an “Independent experts recommend” heading.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real company and is not a legal finding or safe harbour.
Employee review presented as independent expertise
A fictional software company publishes a five-star quote from its product manager under an “Independent experts recommend” heading.
Independent expert verdict. The reviewer is an employee and the relationship is not disclosed.. Five stars. Read methodology
Product-team perspective. The speaker’s role and connection are visible beside the quote.. Read methodology. Five stars. Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Read methodology” 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 “Five stars” has persuasive meaning only if its population, period, metric and relationship match the represented claim. The panel instead says: “The reviewer is an employee and the relationship is not disclosed.” Buyers may mistake an internal promotional statement for independent evaluation.
What a fairer design does: Identify the speaker and relationship accurately and substantiate any expertise or independence claim.
Show annotated differences (2)
Potentially problematic version
- Read methodologyIn “Employee review presented as independent expertise”, this element shows how testimonials or endorsements can shape the decision.
Neutral alternative
- Price, period and commitment, expanded: The price and material terms associated with “Read methodology” remain beside this choice.In “Employee review presented as independent expertise”, this element keeps the clearer alternative visible at the same decision point.
Review questions (3)
- Which source record substantiates “Five stars”, 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 statement is connected to a purchase or other material choice”?
- Can the claim be reproduced from a defined population and period, or does the evidence instead fit “aggregate rating without testimonial attribution”?
Complete pattern context
How this example relates to Testimonials or endorsements
A named or attributed person's approval is used persuasively without sufficient authenticity, representativeness or relationship disclosure. 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