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 company and is not a legal finding or 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: Enter order number: current. Obscured outcome: Request deletion: current
Delete your account. A direct settings route uses account authentication and explains completion timing.. Completion step: Request deletion: completed. Recorded outcome: Enter order number: completed. 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 (2)
Potentially problematic version
- Obscured outcome: Request deletion: currentIn “Deletion buried behind an unsupported ticket”, this element shows how account deletion obstruction can shape the decision.
Neutral alternative
- Request recorded: Request deletionIn “Deletion buried behind an unsupported ticket”, this element keeps the clearer alternative visible at the same decision point.
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 pattern context
How this example relates to Account deletion obstruction
Deleting an account is unavailable, disguised as another outcome or burdened by unnecessary barriers. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
The full guide explains inclusion and exclusion criteria, harms, fair design principles, evidence questions and the relevant EU 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
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.
Cancellation friction
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.
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
- Unfair Commercial Practices DirectiveEuropean Parliament and Council of the European Union · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · Directive 2005/29/EC; CELEX 02005L0029-20220528