SINGAPORE: Last month, when consumer electronics and home appliance retailers Courts and Prism+ were flagged by Singapore’s consumer watchdog for using website features that misled customers, it felt familiar.
It was only months before when online travel agency Agoda and homegrown brand OSIM were flagged by the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) for similar unfair practices.
In each case, the companies moved quickly to rectify the issues. While this responsiveness is encouraging, it raises a deeper question: Should more be done to deter such deceitful tactics before they occur?
A long-standing stream of research in behavioural economics, such as by Nobel laureate Richard Thaler, has documented how firms systematically take advantage of predictable biases in consumer decision-making.
For example, consumers are sensitive to framing and cues such as urgency and scarcity, which businesses take advantage of.
In the case of Prism+, CCS found the use of fake countdown timers, misleading low-stock indicators and inflated discounts.
The stock indicator on certain product listing pages on the PRISM+ website shows "In Stock: Running Low!" in this screenshot captured by CCS on Jan 20, 2025. (Image: CCS)
These are not accidental glitches, but design choices that marketers refer to as “dark patterns” – practices that can shape decisions without consumers fully realising it.
Are these practices common? From my perspective as both a consumer and a researcher, I believe they are.
In fact, in my own household, we sometimes joke about stores that seem to be perpetually on “closing down” or “last chance” sales yet somehow remain open year after year.
What begins as amusement, however, points to a deeper issue: When urgency cues and exaggerated discounts are repeatedly used, they can normalise misleading signals and dull consumers’ ability to distinguish genuine value from clever presentation.
One might argue that markets can discipline bad behaviour. Being rapped publicly may trigger an immediate backlash.
For example, when Agoda was flagged for having “problematic features” on its website, Singapore consumers responded by sharing screenshots of price discrepancies and urgency cues on social media, with many advising others to cross-check prices or book directly with hotels.
However, while consumers can react strongly, they also forget quickly.
In informal conversations with colleagues and friends six months after the Agoda episode, many told me they would still book through the platform. The concern was acknowledged, but convenience and competitive pricing appeared to outweigh lingering discomfort over the episode.
This explains why public disclosure alone has limited deterrent effect.
This leads to the harder question: Should Singapore consider stronger enforcement tools, including financial penalties for such unfair marketing practices?
The CCS is a statutory board under the Ministry of Trade and Industry with legal powers to administer and enforce the Competition Act (CA) and the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA). It can impose financial penalties under the CA and has done so in instances such as bid rigging and price-fixing, which it considers as among the most egregious forms of anti-competitive conduct.
But CCS does not have the power to impose financial penalties on errant businesses under the CPFTA. Instead, it issues warning letters to businesses found to have engaged in unfair trade practices. It can also seek court orders to get businesses to cease or correct their practices, and consequences for non-compliance are decided by the court. This was the case when CCS sought court orders against two immigration consultancy firms and their operator last year.
Taking a stronger stance can have clear benefits. Penalties raise the cost of misconduct and send a stronger signal that consumer harm is taken seriously.
Regulatory action has shown that tougher rules can change firm behaviour. In Australia, Volkswagen was forced to overhaul compliance practices after being slapped with a record fine in 2019 for misleading emissions claims – a case described by regulators as a deterrent signal to the entire industry. The penalty of A$125 million (US$84 million) was the highest ordered by a court for breaches of Australian consumer law.
In the United States, Amazon simplified its subscription cancellation process after enforcement action over deceptive design, illustrating how regulation can reshape not just outcomes, but the way firms design consumer interfaces.
Had the Courts or Prism+ events occurred in the European Union or Australia, financial penalties could have been on the table. The United States also allows class-action lawsuits that can impose substantial financial and reputational costs on firms.
While outcomes would depend on the facts of the case, the key difference is that firms in these markets operate under a credible threat of fines, not just public disclosure.
However, these systems are not without problems. They can be litigious, slow, and costly. I personally feel the need for stronger enforcement but that alone is not the answer.
The same behavioural insights used to exploit consumers can also be used to protect them. Clearer price disclosures, standardised comparison formats and default settings that favour consumer welfare can reduce harm without stifling choice.
Consumer education also matters. In Singapore, CCS or the Consumers Association of Singapore could issue short, plain-language advisories explaining common tactics, such as inflated reference prices, countdown timers or “limited stock” messages.
Simple visuals, which are shared online during major sales periods, can nudge consumers to take a pause before checking out their shopping carts.
Consumer protection cannot rely on either education or enforcement alone. Only when credible institutional safeguards and informed consumers work together can misleading practices be meaningfully deterred.
Professor Sharon Ng is Deputy Dean of the Nanyang Business School at Nanyang Technological University. She is also the founding director of the Nanyang Centre for Marketing and Technology.
Continue reading...
It was only months before when online travel agency Agoda and homegrown brand OSIM were flagged by the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCS) for similar unfair practices.
In each case, the companies moved quickly to rectify the issues. While this responsiveness is encouraging, it raises a deeper question: Should more be done to deter such deceitful tactics before they occur?
ARE MISLEADING PRACTICES COMMON?
A long-standing stream of research in behavioural economics, such as by Nobel laureate Richard Thaler, has documented how firms systematically take advantage of predictable biases in consumer decision-making.
For example, consumers are sensitive to framing and cues such as urgency and scarcity, which businesses take advantage of.
In the case of Prism+, CCS found the use of fake countdown timers, misleading low-stock indicators and inflated discounts.
The stock indicator on certain product listing pages on the PRISM+ website shows "In Stock: Running Low!" in this screenshot captured by CCS on Jan 20, 2025. (Image: CCS)
These are not accidental glitches, but design choices that marketers refer to as “dark patterns” – practices that can shape decisions without consumers fully realising it.
Are these practices common? From my perspective as both a consumer and a researcher, I believe they are.
In fact, in my own household, we sometimes joke about stores that seem to be perpetually on “closing down” or “last chance” sales yet somehow remain open year after year.
What begins as amusement, however, points to a deeper issue: When urgency cues and exaggerated discounts are repeatedly used, they can normalise misleading signals and dull consumers’ ability to distinguish genuine value from clever presentation.
Related:
DO MARKETS REALLY PUNISH MISBEHAVING FIRMS?
One might argue that markets can discipline bad behaviour. Being rapped publicly may trigger an immediate backlash.
For example, when Agoda was flagged for having “problematic features” on its website, Singapore consumers responded by sharing screenshots of price discrepancies and urgency cues on social media, with many advising others to cross-check prices or book directly with hotels.
However, while consumers can react strongly, they also forget quickly.
In informal conversations with colleagues and friends six months after the Agoda episode, many told me they would still book through the platform. The concern was acknowledged, but convenience and competitive pricing appeared to outweigh lingering discomfort over the episode.
This explains why public disclosure alone has limited deterrent effect.
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
This leads to the harder question: Should Singapore consider stronger enforcement tools, including financial penalties for such unfair marketing practices?
The CCS is a statutory board under the Ministry of Trade and Industry with legal powers to administer and enforce the Competition Act (CA) and the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA). It can impose financial penalties under the CA and has done so in instances such as bid rigging and price-fixing, which it considers as among the most egregious forms of anti-competitive conduct.
But CCS does not have the power to impose financial penalties on errant businesses under the CPFTA. Instead, it issues warning letters to businesses found to have engaged in unfair trade practices. It can also seek court orders to get businesses to cease or correct their practices, and consequences for non-compliance are decided by the court. This was the case when CCS sought court orders against two immigration consultancy firms and their operator last year.
Related:
Taking a stronger stance can have clear benefits. Penalties raise the cost of misconduct and send a stronger signal that consumer harm is taken seriously.
Regulatory action has shown that tougher rules can change firm behaviour. In Australia, Volkswagen was forced to overhaul compliance practices after being slapped with a record fine in 2019 for misleading emissions claims – a case described by regulators as a deterrent signal to the entire industry. The penalty of A$125 million (US$84 million) was the highest ordered by a court for breaches of Australian consumer law.
In the United States, Amazon simplified its subscription cancellation process after enforcement action over deceptive design, illustrating how regulation can reshape not just outcomes, but the way firms design consumer interfaces.
Had the Courts or Prism+ events occurred in the European Union or Australia, financial penalties could have been on the table. The United States also allows class-action lawsuits that can impose substantial financial and reputational costs on firms.
While outcomes would depend on the facts of the case, the key difference is that firms in these markets operate under a credible threat of fines, not just public disclosure.
However, these systems are not without problems. They can be litigious, slow, and costly. I personally feel the need for stronger enforcement but that alone is not the answer.
The same behavioural insights used to exploit consumers can also be used to protect them. Clearer price disclosures, standardised comparison formats and default settings that favour consumer welfare can reduce harm without stifling choice.
Consumer education also matters. In Singapore, CCS or the Consumers Association of Singapore could issue short, plain-language advisories explaining common tactics, such as inflated reference prices, countdown timers or “limited stock” messages.
Simple visuals, which are shared online during major sales periods, can nudge consumers to take a pause before checking out their shopping carts.
Consumer protection cannot rely on either education or enforcement alone. Only when credible institutional safeguards and informed consumers work together can misleading practices be meaningfully deterred.
Professor Sharon Ng is Deputy Dean of the Nanyang Business School at Nanyang Technological University. She is also the founding director of the Nanyang Centre for Marketing and Technology.
Continue reading...