1. Introduction: the shape of modern fairness
I acknowledge the Ngunnawal people, traditional owners of these lands, and all First Nations people present. Thank you for being here this evening, and to director Luciana Todd for the invitation to address you in this august venue. Manning Clark House has always been a place where ideas are treated with respect - a place where history, politics and culture intersect in ways that slow the pace and lift the level.
It is a fitting place to reflect on something that sits quietly behind everyday life, yet shapes the choices Australians make: the fairness of the marketplace, and the growing influence of design on consumer decision‑making.
In the modern economy, some of the old cues of the marketplace have faded. What was once mediated by a shopfront, a conversation and a paper receipt now happens through interfaces whose workings are largely invisible. Increasingly, the consumer experience depends on micro‑decisions made by designers, engineers and product teams we never meet. Some of those choices are benign. Others - timed prompts, default settings, labyrinthine cancellation paths - work against the consumer. As work on dark patterns has shown, design is never neutral; it relies on assumptions about attention, behaviour and cognitive limits.
This economy has delivered extraordinary convenience, but it has also heightened vulnerabilities that standard economic models tended to understate. Research on consumer decision‑making shows that hidden fees, obscured contract terms and complex choice environments all place heavy demands on attention and cognitive capacity. Across the economy, there is a danger of business models that rely on optimising for engagement or revenue rather than clarity or fairness. Behavioural evidence shows how limited attention, fatigue and overload can lead to decisions people later regret. Taken together, these findings show that consumers can be placed at a structural disadvantage when firms design environments that exploit predictable blind spots.
This matters because markets run on trust. When people feel misled or worn down, trust begins to fray. And when trust erodes, honest firms lose ground to those willing to use trickery as a competitive strategy. Over time, that corrodes both consumer confidence and the competitive process itself. That is why the Australian Government, with agreement and support of state and territory governments, is delivering on this commitment. Our reforms do 3 things. First, we introduce a principles‑based and economy wide ban on unfair trading practices, a clear rule against conduct that manipulates or distorts consumer decision making, causing harm. Second, we put a stop to subscription traps. Businesses will be required to disclose key terms before sign‑up, provide timely reminders at critical points, and remove unreasonable barriers to cancelling. Third, we strengthen protections against drip pricing. Mandatory per‑transaction fees must be disclosed upfront and prominently, to ensure no more surprises at checkout.
The government plans to prioritise the development of legislation to prohibit unfair trading practices and will consult stakeholders on draft legislation in early 2026 before introduction later in the year.
Today I want to explain why these reforms matter, the evidence behind them, and what they mean for Australians. Unfair practices, subscription traps and drip pricing might sound like small irritations, but together they reveal something bigger: how misleading design and a lack of disclosure can tilt markets against consumers.
Manning Clark reminded us that the stories we tell about our society shape the society we become. The story here is simple: Australians deserve markets where clarity beats confusion, where design respects agency, and where honesty is rewarded rather than penalised. That is the purpose of this reform.
2. When unfairness becomes a business strategy
Markets have never been free of tricks. Long before algorithms, Australians faced tactics designed to tilt the playing field. These include misleading shelf labels that mimic discounts without delivering them, hidden surcharges that surface only at checkout, complicated processes imposing unnecessary conditions to seek benefits, and in some cases refunds ,and contracts that bury key obligations in fine print. Such practices exploit time pressure and complexity, making it harder for people to act on their intentions.
Whether it's buying a takeaway meal, signing up to a gym or purchasing a movie ticket, Australians' customer experiences increasingly take place online. In the online world, firms can shape the entire environment in which decisions are made. Every button, prompt, colour, timer and default setting is adjustable. Every click is measurable. Every hesitation can be analysed. The way a choice is presented is no longer incidental; it is part of a system optimised for engagement, revenue or retention. As studies of digital interface design have shown, small visual and structural tweaks can have large behavioural effects, especially when repeated across millions of transactions (Gray et al. 2018; Mathur et al. 2019).
This shift coincided with a surge in behavioural and information economics. Classic theory assumed well‑informed consumers making rational decisions. But evidence accumulated showing that many purchase environments were designed around limited attention, cognitive shortcuts and the human tendency to focus on headline prices while ignoring back‑end costs. Models of consumer myopia, shrouded attributes and information suppression helped explain why firms might compete on an attractive upfront price while hiding essential information in places customers rarely look (Gabaix & Laibson 2006; Heidhues, Kőszegi and Murooka 2012). Once e‑commerce arrived, these dynamics intensified because interface design allowed those hidden elements to be embedded seamlessly into the transaction flow.
At the same time, the business models of online firms introduced new pressures. Recommender systems, once seen as simple tools for matching users with products, evolved into sophisticated engines optimising for time, engagement and conversion (Smith and Linden 2017). Subscription services discovered that automated renewal and friction‑filled cancellation boosted revenue. Some firms learned that obscuring information about true prices or contract terms reduced abandonment rates. Others discovered that presenting choices in a particular order, or making certain buttons hard to find, increased uptake. It is no coincidence that regulators abroad have taken action against cancellation‑friction practices, including recent cases involving Adobe and Amazon Prime, where customers faced what US authorities described as 'Iliad flows' - long, multi‑step gauntlets designed to frustrate cancellation (FTC 2023; FTC 2024).
The result was an environment in which consumers were not simply deciding, but being steered. The term 'dark patterns' emerged to describe design techniques crafted to influence behaviour in ways that benefited firms at the expense of consumer understanding (Brignull 2010; Gray et al. 2018; Mathur et al. 2019; Kitkowska 2023). These patterns include nudging people into ongoing subscriptions where they wanted a one‑off purchase, making it harder to cancel than to sign up, and hiding key information until late in the process. These techniques exploit well‑known cognitive biases: loss aversion, optimism bias, inattention and fatigue. The resulting user interfaces can operate in ways that are tricky and manipulative (CPRC 2022; Narayanan et al. 2020). Contemporary studies emphasise how these tactics affect privacy, comprehension and autonomy in tandem with the purchasing decision (Kitkowska 2023). Friction‑filled cancellation platforms are not the sole preserve of global companies. In the past, even Australian companies have reportedly made it harder than necessary for subscribers to cancel (Fletcher 2022).
A further element comes from competition analysis. When market participants believe their rivals are obscuring information or fragmenting the purchasing journey, they face strong pressure to copy those strategies or risk being undercut. Evidence from platform inquiries shows that opaque pricing and convoluted contract terms can spread because transparency appears to come at a competitive cost. Under these conditions, the playing field tilts away from clarity and towards complexity (ACCC 2022; Devine 2024). Research on deceptive markets helps explain why these patterns persist: when firms fear consumers will gravitate to whatever looks cheapest, many conclude they cannot afford to be fully transparent (Heidhues, Kőszegi and Murooka 2012).
Regulators around the world began documenting the same trend. A global sweep of websites and apps in 2024 found that almost all employed one or more deceptive design patterns (Global Privacy Enforcement Network 2024). Among subscription services, many do not allow consumers to turn off auto‑renewal during the initial purchase flow. Many also failed to tell consumers when they must cancel to avoid additional charges. Others have identified extensive use of confirmshaming, countdown timers and misleading visual hierarchies (see eg. Grauer 2016; Baumeister et al 2024).
The rise of these practices also reflects something more structural: the collapse of what economists call 'search costs'. When prices are easy to compare, firms have strong incentives to make their product look cheaper than it is. Drip pricing - the practice of adding fees late in the purchasing process - emerged because it allows firms to appear competitive on search engines and comparison tools without actually offering the cheaper deal. There is a risk that hidden fees distort competition by forcing honest firms to choose between clarity and survival (Steinhauser 2023).
Australians have been experiencing these shifts directly, and the survey evidence makes that clear. The most recent Consumer Survey found that more than half of reported consumer problems now arise from online purchases. Ten per cent of respondents said an online provider had manipulated their choices. More than a quarter encountered unexpected charges added late in the transaction. Significant shares reported countdown timers, obscure terms and conditions, or information presented in ways that were almost guaranteed not to be read (Australian Government 2023). These irritations add up to a sense that the terrain is tilted.
Other research deepens the picture. Work by the Consumer Policy Research Centre found that a large majority of Australians had experienced at least one negative consequence from manipulative design features, and that many had accidentally signed up to products or services they did not want. A significant share said these experiences damaged their trust in the organisation involved (CPRC 2022). Younger Australians, who have spent their entire economic lives online, were particularly likely to report spending more than intended or feeling pushed towards options they would not have chosen in a clearer environment.
The Consumer Policy Research Centre also focused in on the harms done by subscription traps. Three in 4 Australians with subscriptions have had a negative experience when trying to cancel a subscription. Half have spent more time than they intended in trying to cancel a subscription. One in 3 have felt pressured into keeping a subscription. One in 10 gave up trying to cancel a subscription and ruefully kept paying for a product or service they no longer wanted.
Taken together, the academic literature and the survey evidence tell a consistent story. Consumers are navigating markets in which design is used to obscure and pressure. These are not problems that can be solved by longer terms and conditions. When entire interfaces are engineered to minimise comprehension, adding more fine print does not fix the problem. At a certain point, fairness requires a clear rule rather than a longer disclaimer.
This is some of the empirical backdrop for the reforms we are pursuing. It shows that the issues are systemic, and that relying on disclosures or warnings is no longer sufficient in an environment designed to overwhelm them. With that foundation in place, we can turn to one of the clearest manifestations of the problem: subscription traps.
3. Subscription traps: restoring choice and clarity
Subscription services have become an increasingly common way Australians pay for products and services. The model can work well: predictable billing helps firms invest, and many users appreciate automatic renewal. But problems arise when the subscription is structured so that joining is swift and effortless while leaving involves added frictions or becomes confusing or emotionally loaded. That imbalance is what turns an ordinary subscription into a subscription trap.
Some examples illustrate how this works.
In one example, consumers signed up for a dating app for a month, only to discover later that the service auto‑renewed for a longer period and early cancellation came with a fee. These terms were only disclosed in small font late in the purchasing process and deep in material posted on the company's website.
Another example involved a seven‑day trial of a web design tool. The user supplied payment details for the trial, unaware that it automatically converted into an annual subscription. Consumers also discovered that cancelling was difficult - they were unable to give advanced notice to stop automatic renewal of their subscription and could only cancel closer to the renewal date.
In another instance, a 24‑hour gym was able to sign up people immediately on their app when they decided to join. But if they chose to leave, cancellation could only be done on the website of the gym. Other gyms reportedly refused to cancel a membership unless the customer was up to date with all their payments - a practice that could lead to a debt spiral.
Consumers who try to cancel often encounter further barriers. A meditation app, for instance, confronted departing users with encouraging messages and a sad 'but why' prompt, while the actual cancellation link appeared in faint, hard‑to‑spot text. The firm wasn't persuading; it was stalling. Other traps require shifting from the online to the telephone. The process that began online suddenly became manual precisely at the moment the consumer tried to regain control.
Existing provisions of the Australian Consumer Law can address some aspects of these examples, such as where misleading conduct is involved. However, tactics such as the use of added frictions to dissuade cancelling are not captured by existing laws.
Our reform goes beyond making cancellation easier. It sets a new standard for fairness in subscription models, ensuring people know what they are signing up for, can manage their commitments and are not trapped by design. Businesses will be required to clearly disclose key terms before signup, provide timely reminders at critical points and remove unreasonable barriers to cancellation.
What ties these situations together is the use of friction. Adding friction shapes behaviour because people are busy, because they have limited time to chase a cancellation path, and because default settings have a quiet but powerful influence on behaviour. Firms that rely on these techniques profit from the hurdles placed in front of those trying to leave.
The outcome is predictable. On one estimate, subscription traps cost Australians $46 million a year (CPRC 2024). Unwanted subscriptions drain budgets in the background. Irritation turns into mistrust. And firms that rely on transparency can find themselves disadvantaged when competitors deliberately build obstacles into the consumer journey. Reform is about restoring symmetry. If joining a service takes seconds, leaving it should not take persistence and luck.
There are companies that already meet this standard. Apple, for instance, sends a clear email every time a subscription renews and gives users a single, easily accessed place where every subscription can be reviewed or cancelled with only a few taps. That approach demonstrates that treating consumers fairly is entirely compatible with a successful business model - and sets an example worth following. Indeed, one survey found that 9 in 10 Australians would likely purchase from the same organisation if cancelling its subscription was quick and simple.
4. Drip pricing: when the real price arrives last
Drip pricing is a clear example of how modern markets can erode consumer choice. The method is straightforward: a low upfront price is displayed, and only after the consumer has progressed through several steps do additional mandatory per transaction charges appear. By that stage, many people have already compared options, invested time and mentally committed to the purchase. The final price arrives only when they feel least able to walk away.
A few examples illustrate the problem. In one instance, a concert ticket was promoted for $109.90 but rose to $117.45 once a compulsory $7.55 'service fee' was added on at the last stage of the process.
In another instance, a provider of home internet services advertised a competitive introductory rate for new customers. Only further into the sign‑up flow did the consumer discover a $79.99 set‑up fee, when the promotional material specified no set up fee. The headline price drew people in; the unavoidable fee emerged only when they were well into the process.
This shows the core problem: drip pricing increases costs, wastes time and obstructs meaningful comparison. It creates frustration for individuals, but it also has wider consequences. When people repeatedly encounter mandatory per transaction charges that surface only at the end, they begin to assume that every online transaction contains a hidden sting. That assumption harms firms that already disclose these fees clearly and rewards those that conceal them.
The technique endures because it taps into familiar behavioural tendencies. People anchor on the first price they see. Once they have invested effort in reaching the final stage of a transaction, they are less inclined to abandon it, even when new information would have changed their initial decision.
The competitive effects are equally troubling. A movie cinema that discloses its full price upfront, including any mandatory per transaction fees, may appear more expensive on comparison tools than a competitor that withholds mandatory per transaction fees until the last step. Over time, this dynamic encourages concealment rather than clarity, driving honest operators to adopt practices they would otherwise avoid.
Drip pricing protections are designed to break this cycle. Existing provisions of the Australian Consumer Law already provide some protections from drip pricing by prohibiting misleading conduct and requiring business to state the total minimum quantifiable price of a product or service as a single figure.
We are strengthening these provisions. Businesses will be required to disclose all unavoidable per transaction fees early and upfront. Firms will no longer be able to use sequential disclosure to shift expectations and inflate revenue. Instead, they will be required to compete on the merits. And consumers will be able to compare offers on the basis of real information, not illusions of low cost.
Drip pricing demonstrates that fairness in markets depends on transparency. When full prices are visible as early as possible, consumers can choose with confidence and firms can compete on merit. That is the kind of marketplace a fair economy should deliver.
5. Why we are taking action
The choice to introduce a ban on unfair trading practices reflects a shared judgement across jurisdictions that the current framework was no longer keeping pace with the way commerce is conducted. That decision was taken collectively by Commonwealth, State and Territory and Consumer Ministers when we met in Canberra on 21 November 2025.
For Labor, the case for action is clear. Australians should be able to understand what they are paying for, rely on the information presented to them and exercise a genuine choice to enter or leave a service. When subscription traps and drip pricing became embedded across parts of the economy, those basic expectations were no longer being met. People were encountering sign‑up flows that minimised key information, cancellation paths that absorbed time and attention, and price displays that withheld unavoidable charges until the last possible moment.
There was also a wider concern: practices that rely on confusion create advantages for firms willing to adopt them, and disadvantages for firms that operate transparently. When opacity starts to confer a competitive edge, the market begins to tilt in the wrong direction. That dynamic had been building for some time. Consumer advocates raised it. Regulators warned about it. Households experienced it directly through small, cumulative losses.
Some argued that existing protections were adequate. But the evidence told a different story. Disclosure rules proved ineffective when firms placed crucial information in locations few people ever saw. Consent became nominal when interfaces were designed to prolong subscriptions that consumers had already decided to end. Traditional enforcement tools struggled with conduct that did not meet the threshold for unconscionability, but was plainly unfair in effect. The legal gap was real, and firms had learned to operate within it.
The cooperation shown by ministers in November reflected a shared understanding that leaving these practices untouched would undermine confidence in online markets. The ban establishes a clearer boundary: companies cannot rely on hidden fees, circuitous cancellation paths or design choices that interfere with a person's ability to act on their own decisions. The aim is to restore a basic standard of honesty in transactions so that price comparisons, subscription cancellations and other aspects of the consumer relationship occur on terms the consumer can readily understand.
Labor's commitment to this work sits within a broader view of economic life: a fair marketplace depends on clear rules that support genuine choice. By updating the law to match the realities of modern commerce, we are helping ensure that Australians can participate confidently, and that businesses competing on straightforward terms are not left at a disadvantage.
6. Designing the new ban
Deciding on a ban on unfair trading practices required more than identifying what was going wrong. It meant working out how to draw a line that will be clear enough for enforcement, flexible enough to cover traditional and new markets and techniques as they emerge, while being practical enough for businesses to apply without unnecessary burden. The aim is to create an environment that supports honest competition and protects consumers without stifling innovation or imposing heavy compliance costs.
A central feature of the reform will be its principles‑based structure. Instead of trying to catalogue every prohibited tactic, a list that would be outdated almost immediately, the ban will focus on the underlying conduct. It will capture practices that unreasonably distort or manipulate a person's ability to make informed decisions, or that interfere with the exercise of choice. This will allow regulators to respond as technology and marketing strategies evolve.
Another important element is consistency across jurisdictions. Placing the ban within the Australian Consumer Law will ensure that the same framework applies nationwide. Businesses operating across borders avoid having to navigate a patchwork of rules.
The ACCC and state and territory consumer agencies will be able to investigate conduct that contravenes the ban, seek penalties and pursue remedies proportionate to the harm. The intent is to disrupt business models built on confusion or concealed costs while offering sensible guidance for firms acting in good faith.
The reform also clarifies expectations for compliant businesses. Many firms already conduct their business, design interfaces and sign‑up flows with clarity in mind. For them, the ban provides certainty and reinforces the competitive advantage that flows from transparent conduct. The guidance material that Australian Consumer Law regulators will produce will help businesses understand how the principles apply in practice.
7. Expanding protections from unfair trading practices
The ban on unfair trading practices is designed to work in concert with existing obligations. It reinforces transparency in pricing and consumer guarantees. It complements prohibitions such as misleading and deceptive conduct. Together, these elements create a more coherent and adaptive consumer law.
The reforms we agreed last month are not the limits of governments' reform ambition on unfair trading practices. As a priority for next year, Consumer Ministers also agreed that the expansion of protections to financial services was worth serious consideration. This expansion is widely supported by consumer groups and our consumer protection agencies, ACCC and ASIC.
Additionally, in early 2026, our government will also commence consultation on an expansion of protections from unfair trading practices to small businesses. Ministers recognised that smaller operators can themselves be on the receiving end of unfair conduct from larger firms.
In construction, we have heard complaints that large businesses discourage smaller businesses from exercising their legal rights by ominously suggesting adverse commercial consequences. In food production, we have heard of retailers threatening to de‑list suppliers in retaliation for seeking price increases to which they are contractually entitled.
These practices can distort competition and erode trust. They force smaller operators to absorb risks and costs they did not agree to, undermining the principle that markets should reward merit rather than muscle. Extending protections to thousands of small businesses, including in construction, agriculture and retail sectors, is essential to restore balance and integrity across the economy. The consultation process will help determine how best to extend protections in a way that is workable, proportionate and sensitive to the realities of running a small enterprise.
8. Markets, trust and the culture we create
When we talk about unfair trading practices, it is easy to frame the issue narrowly - as a matter of dollars lost, time wasted or contracts misunderstood. But there is a wider set of consequences that reach beyond individual transactions. The way markets are designed influences how people see institutions, how they judge fairness and how they understand their own place in economic life. These broader effects matter just as much as the immediate harms.
One of the most important of these wider stakes is trust. In a fair market, people should be able to proceed with a basic confidence that the information they are given is sufficient and the path they follow is straightforward. When they repeatedly encounter hidden charges or obstructive processes, that confidence erodes. And once trust fades in one domain, it often spills into others, shaping how people see banks, insurers, service providers and public institutions.
Another cultural effect concerns personal agency. Algorithms now mediate so many choices that when those systems subtly interfere with a person's ability to act on their own intentions, the impact accumulates. A cancellation path that feels unnecessarily convoluted or a price display that withholds key information changes more than the outcome of that single transaction. It changes a person's expectation of what online life is like: something to navigate carefully rather than something designed with their interests in mind. We began with the structural roots of these dynamics; the focus here is on how they shape public attitudes over time.
There is also a democratic dimension. People form their ethical expectations not only through the law but through their daily interactions. When commercial environments routinely obscure or complicate simple choices, they normalise a mode of engagement that runs counter to the values a democratic society depends on: openness, clarity and respect for the individual. Fair dealing in markets reinforces those values; unfair practices corrode them.
The cultural impact extends to how Australians relate to technology. Digital systems that feel aligned with the user's interests make new tools easier to adopt and easier to trust. Systems that feel extractive do the opposite. In a period of rapid technological change, these small interactions carry weight. They influence whether people approach new technologies with confidence or hesitation.
It is safe to assume that Manning Clark did not spend much time thinking about the optimal rules for regulating subscription cancellations or price disclosures. But he thought deeply about the moral character of Australian life, and about the forces pulling it in different directions. In volume 6 of A History of Australia, Clark wrote that 'Australians must decide for themselves whether this was the land of the dreaming, the land of the Holy Spirit, the New Britannia, the Millennial Eden, or the new demesne for Mammon to infest.' It is a vivid catalogue of the competing stories a country can tell about itself. Unfair trading practices sit firmly in the Mammon category. They bring a nasty opportunism into everyday interactions, asking people to pay more than they expected or persist with services they no longer want. They hurt the most vulnerable, who tend to have lower levels of digital literacy. Ensuring that markets are designed with integrity is one small way of keeping faith with Clark's optimistic vision for Australia.
By addressing these practices, we help renew a norm central to our civic culture: people should be able to take things on their merits. When prices are clear, processes are simple and choices are respected, markets support the habits of trust that democratic life requires. That contribution may be subtle, but it matters.
9. Conclusion: a clearer, more competitive economy
Consumer protection is one of the foundations of a confident, competitive economy. When Australians can see what they are paying for, understand the terms they are agreeing to and act on their own decisions without unnecessary barriers, markets function more effectively. People switch providers more readily. New entrants have a fair chance to compete. Innovation flourishes because firms succeed by offering better value rather than by obscuring the true cost of what they sell.
Subscription traps, drip pricing and other unfair trading practices work against these goals. They drain time and money, but they also erode trust. They shift advantage towards firms that design obstacles and away from those that invest in clear products and straightforward service. Left unchecked, these practices make our economy less dynamic by discouraging people from exploring alternatives or trying new providers. A competitive system cannot thrive when confusion becomes a strategy and clarity becomes a disadvantage.
That is why we acted. The ban on unfair trading practices gives government a modern framework to respond to conduct that distorts choice. It provides regulators with the tools to intervene early and firmly, and it sets expectations that honest businesses can meet with ease. In doing so, it strengthens the conditions under which fair competition can occur.
This reform also helps shape the kind of economy we want. An economy where prices are what they seem, and where people can leave a service as easily as they join it. An economy where design supports intention, rather than undermining it. An economy where innovation is driven by quality, transparency and user experience, not by the ability to bury information in fine print or hide fees until the final screen.
Across this speech, the examples have shown that seemingly small inconveniences accumulate into real burdens. Removing those burdens makes it easier for Australians to make informed choices, and easier for responsible businesses to compete. That is how consumer protection strengthens dynamism. It clears out practices that hold people back and opens the way for businesses that compete on merit.
The ban on unfair trading practices is a straightforward reform with far‑reaching consequences. It is about restoring fairness wherever Australians shop, sign up or seek service, from the retail aisle to the subscription screen. When clarity becomes the norm across all markets, trust grows, competition thrives and consumers win. If we want an economy that is innovative, energetic and open to new ideas, this is exactly the kind of reform that helps build it. It makes the system work the way people expect it to work. And it leaves Australians better equipped to navigate the choices that shape their daily lives.
Note: My thanks to Tori Barker, Meg Thomas and officials at the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Treasury for valuable assistance in preparing these remarks. I also acknowledge Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, led by Chair Gina Cass‑Gottlieb and Consumer Commissioner Catriona Lowe, for their leadership and persistence in championing fairness for all Australians and the many consumer advocates who helped bring these reforms forward, including the Consumer Policy Research Centre, CHOICE and the Consumer Action Law Centre.
References
ACCC (2022) Digital Platform Services Inquiry: March 2022 Interim Report. Canberra: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
Australian Government (2023) Consumer Survey 2023. Canberra: Department of the Treasury.
Baumeister, J et al (2024) Patterns in the Dark: Deceptive Practices in Online Interactions. University of South Australia.
Brignull, H (2011) 'Dark Patterns: Deception vs. Honesty in UI Design', A List Apart, Issue 338.
CPRC (2022) Duped by Design: Manipulative Design Practices in the Digital Marketplace. Melbourne: Consumer Policy Research Centre.
CPRC (2024) 'Unfair trading practices: Submission from consumer advocates on Treasury's Consultation on the design of proposed general and specific prohibitions', CPRC, 19 December.
Devine, V (2024) 'Dirty Pricing Tricks Getting Flamed Is Long Overdue'. Sydney Morning Herald, 20 October.
Fletcher, M. (2022) 'News Corp. makes it so difficult to cancel a subscription to The Australian that some are bound to give up', Australian Newsagency Blog, 11 November.
FTC (2023) FTC Takes Action Against Amazon for Enrolling Consumers in Amazon Prime Without Consent and Sabotaging Their Attempts to Cancel. Federal Trade Commission, 21 June.
FTC (2024) FTC Takes Action Against Adobe and Executives for Hiding Fees, Preventing Consumers from Easily Cancelling Software Subscriptions. Federal Trade Commission, 17 June.
Gabaix, X and Laibson, D (2006) 'Shrouded attributes, consumer myopia, and information suppression in competitive markets', Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), pp. 505-540.
Global Privacy Enforcement Network (2024) Deceptive Design Patterns, July 9.
Grauer, Y. (2016), 'Dark Patterns are designed to trick you (and they're all over the Web)', Ars Technica, 28 July.
Gray, C M, Kou, Y, Battles, B, Hoggatt, J and Toombs, A L (2018) 'The dark (patterns) side of UX design', Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), pp. 1-18.
Heidhues, P., Kőszegi, B. and Murooka, T. (2012) 'The market for deceptive products', Working Paper, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Kitkowska, A. (2023). 'The Hows and Whys of Dark Patterns: Categorizations and Privacy'. In: Gerber, N., Stöver, A., Marky, K. (eds) Human Factors in Privacy Research. Springer, Cham.
Mathur, A et al. (2019) 'Dark patterns at scale: Findings from a crawl of 11,000 shopping websites', Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), pp. 1-32.
Narayanan, A., Mathur, A., Chetty, M. and Kshirsagar, M., (2020). 'Dark Patterns: Past, Present, and Future: The evolution of tricky user interfaces'. Queue, 18(2), pp.67-92.
Smith, B. and Linden, G., 2017. 'Two decades of recommender systems at Amazon.com'. IEEE Internet Computing, 21(3), pp.12-18.
Steinhauser, R. (2023) 'Junk fees and drip pricing: underhanded tactics we hate yet still fall for', The Conversation, 23 August.
