Account deletion 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.
Individual HTML example · 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.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
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.
Contact support to delete. The form rejects users without an order number and links back to the same help article.. Blocking step: upcoming. Obscured outcome: upcoming
Delete your account. A direct settings route uses account authentication and explains completion timing.. Completion step: upcoming. Recorded outcome: upcoming. Request recorded: Request deletion
Why the first version can mislead: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this shopping account example, the obstacle is: “The form rejects users without an order number and links back to the same help article.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “Request deletion” reaches the represented state. People may be unable to exercise the represented account control because of irrelevant information and route barriers.
What a fairer design does: Put deletion in normal settings, require only necessary verification and offer a usable fallback for inaccessible accounts.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
- The form rejects users without an order number and links back to the same help article.Why this state matters: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this shopping account example, the obstacle is: “The form rejects users without an order number and links back to the same help article.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “Request deletion” reaches the represented state. People may be unable to exercise the represented account control because of irrelevant information and route barriers.
- Obscured outcome: upcomingReview prompt: How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “Enter order number” from the completed shopping account outcome?
Neutral alternative
- A direct settings route uses account authentication and explains completion timing.Fairer design: Put deletion in normal settings, require only necessary verification and offer a usable fallback for inaccessible accounts.
- Request recorded: Request deletionReview prompt: Count steps, waits, offers and channel changes through final confirmation; where does the route meet “The observed route is missing, materially harder than account creation or produces only deactivation without clear disclosure”?
Review questions (3)
- How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “Enter order number” from the completed shopping account outcome?
- Count steps, waits, offers and channel changes through final confirmation; where does the route meet “The observed route is missing, materially harder than account creation or produces only deactivation without clear disclosure”?
- Measure the same task through the clearest available route: does the effort difference persist once “reasonable authentication” 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