Exploding the Fine Print: Designing Visual, Interactive, Consumer-Centric Contracts and Disclosures

  • Margaret HaganEmail author
Part of the Perspectives in Law, Business and Innovation book series (PLBI)


In this chapter, we present new models for the presentation of contracting terms and interactions, based on user research and design work into consumer contracts. As more contracts become machine-readable, there is an open question of how people will actually interact with these computable contracts, so that they can effectively, efficiently, and meaningfully use them. At Stanford Legal Design Lab we went through several human-centered design cycles to generate new contract designs, gather qualitative feedback about them, and then propose guiding insights and new conceptual models for better consumer-facing legal communications. This initial study led to key principles, models, and patterns that demonstrate how consumer contracts can be more comprehensible, engaging, and effective. Following on this qualitative design research, we then conducted more structured, qualitative evaluations of the new contract interface models that we had designed. We did a comparative study of how users engaged with and used different interface models to determine which ones were most effective. Effectiveness is judged on several criteria: the ability to engage the attention and actions of the user, the ability to help the user comprehend the content that it is communicating, and the ability to help the user make a decision that fits with his or her own preferences and needs. This study can serve all those interested in improving disclosures, terms of service, privacy policies, and various other forms of business-to-consumer contracts. It provides empirical research on new models for communicating complex terms and conditions to lay people. It bridges the literature of contract design for improved usability and outcomes, behavioral economics’ concern for choice engines and decision making, legal scholarship on the effectiveness of disclosure as a regulatory mechanism, and HCI research on how best to engage users and help them navigate systems.


Legal design Consumer contracts Design patterns Computable contracts Communication design 


  1. Adams K (2011) Adding document-design bling to contracts? Dec 1. Accessed 28 Aug 2018
  2. Adams K (2012) So a corporate seal can be relevant! June 26 Accessed 28 Aug 2018
  3. AwardMe (n.d.). Accessed 30 Aug 2018
  4. Ayres I, Schwartz A (2014) The no-reading problem in consumer contract law. Stanf Law Rev 66:545–610Google Scholar
  5. Balmford C (n.d.) Plain language: beyond a movement. In: Plain language action and information network. Accessed 6 July 2018
  6. Ben-Shahar O, Chilton A (2016) Simplification of privacy disclosures: an experimental test. University of Chicago Coase-Sandor Institute for Law & Economics.
  7. Berger-Walliser G, Bird R-C, Haapio H (2011) Promoting business success through contract visualization. J Law Bus Ethics 17:55–76Google Scholar
  8. Brunschwig C-R (2014) On visual law: visual legal communication practices and their scholarly exploration. In: Schweihofer E et al (eds) Zeichen und zauber des rechts: festschrift für friedrich lachmayer. Editions Weblaw, BernGoogle Scholar
  9. Calo MR (2013) Against notice skepticism in privacy (and elsewhere). Notre Dame Law Rev 87(3):1027–1072Google Scholar
  10. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (n.d.) Explore interest rates. Accessed 30 Aug 2018
  11. Facebook Help Center (n.d.) What’s privacy checkup and how can I find it? Accessed 29 July 2018
  12. Flood M-D, Goodenough OR (2015) Contract as automaton: the computational representation of financial agreements. SSRN Electron J
  13. Fraser V, Roberge J (2016) Legal design lawyering: rebooting legal business model with design thinking. Pepperdine Disp Resolut Law J 16:303–316Google Scholar
  14. Gerding E-F (2013) Contract as pattern language. Washington Law Rev 88:1323–1356Google Scholar
  15. Gurin J, Noveck B-S (2013) Corporations and transparency: improving consumer markets and increasing public accountability. In: Bowles N, Hamilton J-T, Levy D-A (eds) Transparency in politics and the media: accountability and open government. I.B.Tauris & Co. Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Haapio H, Plewe D-A, de Rooy R (2016) Next generation deal design: comics and visual platforms for contracting. In: Netzwerke T, Internationalen rechtsinformatik symposions (IRIS)., SalzburgGoogle Scholar
  17. Kleimann Communication Group, Inc. (2013) Know before you owe: post-proposal consumer testing of the Spanish and refinance integrated TILA-RESPA disclosures. Accessed 30 Aug 2018
  18. Kleimann Communication Group, Inc. (2009) Web-based financial privacy notice: final summary findings report. Accessed 30 Aug 2018
  19. Lisachenko A-V (2012) Law as a programming language. Rev Central East Eur Law 37:115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu F et al (2014) A step towards usable privacy policy: automatic alignment of privacy statements. Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science. Accessed 30 Aug 2018
  21. McDonald A-M et al (2009) A comparative study of online privacy policies and formats. In: Goldberg I, Atallah M-J (eds) Privacy enhancing technologies. PETS, 2009. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5672. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McDonald A-M, Cranor L-F (2008) The cost of reading privacy policies. J Law Policy Inf Soc 4(3):543–568Google Scholar
  23. Mitchell J-A (2015) Putting some product into work-product: corporate lawyers learning from designers. Berkeley Bus Law J 12(1):1–44Google Scholar
  24. Moringiello J-M (2014) Notice, assent and form in a 140 character world. Southwestern Law Rev 44:275–284Google Scholar
  25. Mullen E (2015) helping millions gain coverage. Accessed 5 July 2018
  26. National Center for Education Studies (n.d.) College navigator. Accessed 30 Aug 2018
  27. Nerdwallet (2018) Compare rewards credit cards for good credit. Accessed 30 Aug 2018
  28. Padula D (2014) Bringing innovation to the tradition of contract drafting: an interview with Ken Adams. Scholastia, 22 Sept. Accessed 27 July 2018
  29. Passera S (2018) Flowcharts, swimlanes, and timelines: alternatives to prose in communicating legal–bureaucratic instructions to civil servants. J Bus Tech Commun 32(2):229–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Passera S (2012) Enhancing contract usability and user experience through visualization – an experimental evalution. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on information visualisation (IV). IEEE, MontpellierGoogle Scholar
  31. Passera S, Haapio H (2013) Transforming contracts from legal rules to user-centered communication tools: a human-information interaction challenge. Commun Des Q 1(3):38–45Google Scholar
  32. Passera S, Haapio H, Barton T-D (2013) Innovating contract practices: merging contract design with information design. In: Chittenden J (ed) Proceedings of the IACCM academic forum. International Association for Contract and Commercial Management, RidgefieldGoogle Scholar
  33. Peppet SR (2012) Freedom of contract in an augmented reality: the case of consumer contracts. Univ Calif Los Angeles Law Rev 59(11):676–745Google Scholar
  34. Plain Language (n.d.) Federal plain language guidelines. Accessed 30 Aug 2018
  35. Rao L (2011) Zynga combines privacy education, gaming and rewards with PrivacyVille. TechCrunch, 7 July. Accessed 29 July 2018
  36. Salazar S-I, Bergstrom J-R (2014) Spanish language personas: informing the design of healthcare websites. User Experience, Sept. Accessed 30 Aug 2018
  37. Salo M, Haapio H (n.d.) Making good business decisions – the business judgment rule as a tool for better decision making 1–53Google Scholar
  38. Schaub F et al (2015) A design space for effective privacy notices. In: Eleventh symposium on usable privacy and security (SOUPS). USENIX Association, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  39. Shankar S-V (2015) The death of search and the rise of choice engines. Big data made simple, 14 May. Accessed 30 Aug 2018
  40. Smith H-E (2006) Modularity in contracts: boilerplate and information flow. Mich Law Rev 104:1175–1222Google Scholar
  41. Stanford Law School (n.d.) Courses. Accessed 30 Aug 2018
  42. Surden H (2012) Computable contracts. Univ Calif Davis Law Rev 46:629–700Google Scholar
  43. Thaler R-H, Tucker W (2013) Smarter information, smarter consumers. Harvard Bus Rev 91:44–54Google Scholar
  44. Triantis G (2013) Improving contract quality: modularity, technology, and innovation in contract design. Stanf J Law Bus Fin 18(2):177–214Google Scholar
  45. Valberg C (2014) How taught America to finally care about design. Wired, 10 Oct. Accessed 30 Aug 2018
  46. Walla (n.d.), Accessed 30 Aug 2018
  47. WhistleOut (2018) Compare the best cell phone plans. Accessed 30 Aug 2018
  48. Zimmeck S et al (2017) Automated analysis of privacy requirements for mobile apps. In: Proceedings network and distributed system security symposium. NDSS, San Diego, 3066(132):286–296Google Scholar
  49. Zimmerman J, Forlizzi J, Evenson S (2007) Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, San JoseGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Legal Design LabStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations