Obstructed alternative
Guest checkout hidden behind account copy
A fictional shop displays account creation as the only button and places guest checkout inside a collapsed paragraph titled “Other information”.
Individual HTML example · Obstruction
Rejecting optional tracking needs multiple panels
A fictional consent layer accepts optional tracking in one click but requires opening three panels and disabling twelve switches to refuse it.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
Rejecting optional tracking needs multiple panels
A fictional consent layer accepts optional tracking in one click but requires opening three panels and disabling twelve switches to refuse it.
Your privacy options. Acceptance is immediate; refusal is distributed across three nested screens.. Selected: Accept all. Not selected: Reject optional tracking
Choose optional tracking. Accept all, reject optional and customise are visible at the same level.. Not selected: Reject optional tracking. Not selected: Accept all. Choice consequences, expanded: The consequence of selecting “Reject optional tracking” is displayed beside the option.
Why the first version can mislead: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this cookie preferences example, the obstacle is: “Acceptance is immediate; refusal is distributed across three nested screens.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “Reject optional tracking” reaches the represented state. The asymmetric path can deter a user from reaching a genuine lower-data choice.
What a fairer design does: Offer equally direct accept, reject and customise paths while preserving granular settings for users who want them.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
- Acceptance is immediate; refusal is distributed across three nested screens.Why this state matters: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this cookie preferences example, the obstacle is: “Acceptance is immediate; refusal is distributed across three nested screens.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “Reject optional tracking” reaches the represented state. The asymmetric path can deter a user from reaching a genuine lower-data choice.
- Not selected: Reject optional trackingReview prompt: How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “Accept all” from the completed cookie preferences outcome?
Neutral alternative
- Accept all, reject optional and customise are visible at the same level.Fairer design: Offer equally direct accept, reject and customise paths while preserving granular settings for users who want them.
- Choice consequences, expanded: The consequence of selecting “Reject optional tracking” is displayed beside the option.Review prompt: Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “The alternative is available in principle but requires additional discovery, interaction or recovery from obstruction”?
Review questions (3)
- How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “Accept all” from the completed cookie preferences outcome?
- Capture every peer option, its default state and visual prominence; do those states support “The alternative is available in principle but requires additional discovery, interaction or recovery from obstruction”?
- Measure the same task through the clearest available route: does the effort difference persist once “exit from an existing subscription, which is classified as hard to cancel” is accounted for?
Complete practice context
How this example relates to Obstructed alternative
A relevant alternative within the current decision is hidden, blocked or made materially harder than the business-favoured action. 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