Account deletion obstruction
Deletion buried behind an unsupported ticket
A fictional retailer places account deletion behind six help pages and requires a support ticket containing an order number even for users who never ordered.
Individual HTML example · Obstruction
Deactivation presented as deletion
A fictional platform labels a control “Delete account”, but the confirmation only hides the profile and leaves data and reactivation available indefinitely.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
Deactivation presented as deletion
A fictional platform labels a control “Delete account”, but the confirmation only hides the profile and leaves data and reactivation available indefinitely.
Delete account. The resulting state is only temporary deactivation, disclosed after the action.. Delete now. Unconfirmed state: Delete now
Choose deactivation or deletion. Each option states what remains, for how long and whether recovery is possible.. Permanently delete account. Saved state: Permanently delete account. Persisted account state, expanded: The saved state behind “Permanently delete account” remains consistent after refresh and across supported channels.
Why the first version can mislead: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this social account settings example, the obstacle is: “The resulting state is only temporary deactivation, disclosed after the action.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “Permanently delete account” reaches the represented state. A person may reasonably believe the account and associated data were deleted when only visibility changed.
What a fairer design does: Separate deactivation from deletion and state retention, timing, recovery and consequences before confirmation.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
- The resulting state is only temporary deactivation, disclosed after the action.Why this state matters: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this social account settings example, the obstacle is: “The resulting state is only temporary deactivation, disclosed after the action.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “Permanently delete account” reaches the represented state. A person may reasonably believe the account and associated data were deleted when only visibility changed.
- Unconfirmed state: Delete nowReview prompt: How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “Delete now” from the completed social account settings outcome?
Neutral alternative
- Each option states what remains, for how long and whether recovery is possible.Fairer design: Separate deactivation from deletion and state retention, timing, recovery and consequences before confirmation.
- Persisted account state, expanded: The saved state behind “Permanently delete account” remains consistent after refresh and across supported channels.Review prompt: Test the control across refresh, device and account states; is “The user seeks permanent account deletion” still observable after persistence is considered?
Review questions (3)
- How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “Delete now” from the completed social account settings outcome?
- Test the control across refresh, device and account states; is “The user seeks permanent account deletion” still observable after persistence is considered?
- Measure the same task through the clearest available route: does the effort difference persist once “Legally required record retention clearly distinguished from account access” is accounted for?
Complete practice context
How this example relates to Account deletion obstruction
Deleting an account is unavailable, disguised as another outcome or burdened by unnecessary barriers. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
The full guide explains inclusion and exclusion criteria, potential harms, fairer design, evidence questions and separate Australian 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
Comparison prevention
Plans use incompatible pricing units
A fictional provider shows one plan per week, another per four weeks and a third per gigabyte, without a consistent total or usage assumption.
Comparison prevention
Plan details cannot be retained side by side
A fictional quote tool reveals one plan at a time, clears the previous plan whenever another is opened and provides no stable summary of limits, excess or exclusions.
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
- Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Act 2026Federal Register of Legislation · Primary · checked 2026-09-14 · C2026A00064