Customer-support obstruction
Contact form requires irrelevant purchase data
A fictional retailer’s only contact form requires an order number and rejects enquiries from people seeking accessibility information before purchase.
Individual HTML example · Obstruction
Support bot loops without escalation
A fictional subscription service routes every “charged after cancellation” message through the same three bot articles and offers no human or written case route.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real company and is not a legal finding or safe harbour.
Support bot loops without escalation
A fictional subscription service routes every “charged after cancellation” message through the same three bot articles and offers no human or written case route.
How can we help?. The bot repeats three articles and closes the conversation after each answer.. Start over. Unconfirmed state: Start over
Billing issue not resolved. A written escalation route preserves the history and creates a case number.. Send to support. Saved state: Send to support. Persisted account state, expanded: The saved state behind “Send to support” remains consistent after refresh and across supported channels.
Why the first version can mislead: The route adds avoidable effort between the user’s stated intention and completion. In this billing support example, the obstacle is: “The bot repeats three articles and closes the conversation after each answer.” Evidence should show whether the alternative remains usable and whether “Send to support” reaches the represented state. A customer may be unable to dispute a charge or preserve evidence of the request.
What a fairer design does: Provide an accessible escalation route, retain the conversation and issue a case reference when self-service cannot resolve the issue.
Show annotated differences (2)
Potentially problematic version
- Unconfirmed state: Start overIn “Support bot loops without escalation”, this element shows how customer-support obstruction can shape the decision.
Neutral alternative
- Persisted account state, expanded: The saved state behind “Send to support” remains consistent after refresh and across supported channels.In “Support bot loops without escalation”, this element keeps the clearer alternative visible at the same decision point.
Review questions (3)
- How many steps, waits and channel changes separate “Start over” from the completed billing support outcome?
- Test the control across refresh, device and account states; is “Support is materially needed for a consumer issue connected with supply” still observable after persistence is considered?
- Measure the same task through the clearest available route: does the effort difference persist once “Reasonable queue or documented service hours” is accounted for?
Complete pattern context
How this example relates to Customer-support obstruction
Access to support needed to resolve a purchase, account, charge or right is hidden or burdened by unnecessary loops and dead ends. 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
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
- An Ontology of Dark Patterns KnowledgeGray et al.; ACM CHI 2024 · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · DOI 10.1145/3613904.3642436; arXiv:2309.09640
- Unfair Commercial Practices DirectiveEuropean Parliament and Council of the European Union · Primary · checked 2026-08-09 · Directive 2005/29/EC; CELEX 02005L0029-20220528