Cancellation friction
Online signup requires telephone cancellation
A fictional streaming service accepts signup in three online steps but requires a weekday telephone call, repeated identity questions and a retention interview to cancel.
Individual HTML example · Obstruction
Five save offers block the final exit
A fictional account shows a new discount, pause offer or survey after every click on “Cancel”, and the final confirmation appears only after five refusals.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
Five save offers block the final exit
A fictional account shows a new discount, pause offer or survey after every click on “Cancel”, and the final confirmation appears only after five refusals.
Before you go. Five sequential retention steps stand between request and confirmation.. Blocking step: upcoming. Obscured outcome: upcoming
Confirm cancellation. One optional alternative sits beside a direct confirmation action.. Completion step: upcoming. Recorded outcome: upcoming. Request recorded: End deliveries
Why the first version can mislead: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this meal-plan account example, the obstacle is: “Five sequential retention steps stand between request and confirmation.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “End deliveries” reaches the represented state. Repeated friction can delay an intended exit and increase the chance of another billing cycle.
What a fairer design does: Keep optional save offers non-blocking and provide a stable direct path to confirmation.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
- Five sequential retention steps stand between request and confirmation.Why this state matters: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this meal-plan account example, the obstacle is: “Five sequential retention steps stand between request and confirmation.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “End deliveries” reaches the represented state. Repeated friction can delay an intended exit and increase the chance of another billing cycle.
- Obscured outcome: upcomingReview prompt: How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “See another offer” from the completed meal-plan account outcome?
Neutral alternative
- One optional alternative sits beside a direct confirmation action.Fairer design: Keep optional save offers non-blocking and provide a stable direct path to confirmation.
- Request recorded: End deliveriesReview prompt: Count steps, waits, offers and channel changes through final confirmation; where does the route meet “The route is difficult to find, non-straightforward or includes steps beyond those reasonably necessary”?
Review questions (3)
- How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “See another offer” from the completed meal-plan account outcome?
- Count steps, waits, offers and channel changes through final confirmation; where does the route meet “The route is difficult to find, non-straightforward or includes steps beyond those reasonably necessary”?
- Measure the same task through the clearest available route: does the effort difference persist once “mandatory consequence disclosure that does not impede completion” is accounted for?
Complete practice context
How this example relates to Cancellation friction
Ending an existing subscription, recurring service or permission is made difficult to find or complete through unnecessary steps or channel asymmetry. 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
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.
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.
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
- Competition and Consumer Act 2010, including Schedule 2: Australian Consumer LawFederal Register of Legislation · Primary · checked 2026-09-14 · C2004A00109
- Microsoft in court for allegedly misleading millions of Australians over Microsoft 365 subscriptionsAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission · Primary · checked 2026-09-14
- HelloFresh and Youfoodz in court over alleged subscription trapsAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission · Primary · checked 2026-09-14
- Manipulative conduct in the digital economy, pricing claims and competition in essential services among ACCC priorities for year aheadAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission · Primary · checked 2026-08-09