I see that as a very clear example of manipulation, actually.<p>They presented a meaningless price when in situations where potential customers would compare them with competitors. Only when they can be sure that a customer would likely not check the price anymore (because they think they already know it or because of psychological reasons), they show the actual amount.<p>That&#x27;s a very clear case of improving their own situation (better conversion rates) by worsening their customers&#x27; situation (higher likelihood of overspending, reduced ability to compare prices) and making them act against their own interests. This would be manipulation by the all of article&#x27;s criteria.<p>Of course as a company you can decide do use that strategy - it&#x27;s not your job to think for your your customers. But don&#x27;t be surprised if consumer advocacy groups flag you and at some point you find people demanding a law against that practice.<p>More generally, I&#x27;d draw the line to &quot;marketing&quot; if you supply information to the customer that&#x27;s either meaningless or misleads the customer, but could not possibly help them reach their own goals. (As in this case presenting an amount in the search results that has no practical relevance.)<p>I&#x27;d draw the line to &quot;manipulation&quot; even earlier, if you make a person act in a way that&#x27;s against their own conscious interests in the moment. As I said, there can be rare cases in which that manipulation could even be wanted by the person, but I don&#x27;t see that changing the fact that it&#x27;s manipulation. It&#x27;s different from &quot;persuasion&quot; where you make the person change their interests.