A fictional comparison tool requires occupation, exact birth date, mobile number and marketing preference before showing the plans that are available in a postcode.
Forced disclosure or excessive data requestInsurance comparisonPricing
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
Insurance comparisonPricing
Excessive details for product comparison
A fictional comparison tool requires occupation, exact birth date, mobile number and marketing preference before showing the plans that are available in a postcode.
Potentially problematicTell us everything first
Tell us everything first. Four personal fields block access to a basic plan comparison.. Occupation: Enter occupation. Exact date of birth: Enter exact date of birth. Mobile number: Enter mobile number. Not selected: Receive comparison offers. Reveal plans
Four personal fields block access to a basic plan comparison.
OccupationEnter occupation
Exact date of birthEnter exact date of birth
Mobile numberEnter mobile number
Receive comparison offers
Reveal plans
→
Neutral alternativeCompare available plans
Compare available plans. Postcode and the minimum eligibility facts are requested with a reason.. Postcode: Enter postcode. Relevant eligibility facts: Enter relevant eligibility facts. Show plans. Purpose and refusal effect, expanded: The form explains why “Show plans” is requested and what happens if it is not used.
Postcode and the minimum eligibility facts are requested with a reason.
Purpose and refusal effectThe form explains why “Show plans” is requested and what happens if it is not used.
Why the first version can mislead: The additional dependency controls access to the pricing goal. The panel states: “Four personal fields block access to a basic plan comparison.” Reviewers need to establish whether “Reveal plans” is necessary for the selected task or pressures the user into a separable action. The user may disclose more personal information than the preliminary comparison reasonably needs.
What a fairer design does: Ask only for information needed for the comparison, explain why each field matters and defer contact details until the user requests follow-up.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
Four personal fields block access to a basic plan comparison.Why this state matters: The additional dependency controls access to the pricing goal. The panel states: “Four personal fields block access to a basic plan comparison.” Reviewers need to establish whether “Reveal plans” is necessary for the selected task or pressures the user into a separable action. The user may disclose more personal information than the preliminary comparison reasonably needs.
Reveal plansReview prompt: What functional need makes “Reveal plans” necessary for the insurance comparison goal, and can that need be met with less disclosure or commitment?
Neutral alternative
Postcode and the minimum eligibility facts are requested with a reason.Fairer design: Ask only for information needed for the comparison, explain why each field matters and defer contact details until the user requests follow-up.
Purpose and refusal effect, expanded: The form explains why “Show plans” is requested and what happens if it is not used.Review prompt: Which fields or permissions are required, what happens on refusal, and does the resulting state support this criterion: “Necessity is apparently unrelated, disproportionate or unexplained”?
Review questions (3)
What functional need makes “Reveal plans” necessary for the insurance comparison goal, and can that need be met with less disclosure or commitment?
Which fields or permissions are required, what happens on refusal, and does the resulting state support this criterion: “Necessity is apparently unrelated, disproportionate or unexplained”?
Could the stated purpose make this dependency genuinely necessary under the boundary “voluntary field with a clear skip path and purpose”, and what product evidence would demonstrate that necessity?
Side-by-side insurance comparison interface showing “Tell us everything first” and the clearer alternative “Compare available plans”.Provenance: Original hypothetical insurance comparison example created for this library; no real business, product or interface is depicted.
Complete practice context
How this example relates to Forced disclosure or excessive data request
Access or progression is conditioned on disclosing personal information that appears unnecessary, excessive or used for an insufficiently explained secondary purpose. 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.
A fictional furniture shop requires a visitor to disclose an exact birth date and mobile number before showing whether delivery is available to the entered postcode.
A fictional video service starts another clip when a user’s chosen twenty-minute limit is reached and hides the leave action behind a full-screen recommendation.
A fictional marketplace continuously inserts new products and removes pagination, position and viewed-item markers while promotional prompts follow the shopper.
