ClearTerms
The biggest lie on the internet is "I have read and agree to the terms and conditions." ClearTerms uses AI-driven summaries to make that statement actually true.
Project Overview
ClearTerms began at Sync the City, a 54 hour startup event where teams pitch ideas and build them into viable concepts. The problem we set out to solve is one most people ignore but nearly everyone experiences, legal terms and conditions that nobody reads.
Our research revealed the scale of the problem. 83% of people accept T&Cs without reading them. 97% said they'd prefer a plain summary of what matters before agreeing. We found a real case where a man lost his right to sue over food poisoning because of a clause buried in a free service signup. The consequences were real and harmful. That story gave our product purpose.
ClearTerms was designed to bridge that gap. The solution served two audiences. Consumers who need clarity, and businesses that want to build trust and reduce legal risk.
Design Process
I started with research before opening any design tools. Surveys and interviews revealed that users weren't ignoring terms out of laziness. They were overwhelmed by the structure and language. That distinction shifted the focus from reducing content to improving how information gets surfaced and prioritised.
From there, I defined the core goal: enable users to quickly identify risky clauses without reading the full document. Early exploration looked at different product formats. A website made sense initially as it would be easier to distribute and test. Mapping the user journey changed that. Users encounter terms and conditions in context, at the moment of signing up, not separately. A Chrome extension put the tool exactly where it was needed, reducing friction without asking users to seek it out.
With the format settled, I moved into wireframing. The central challenge was hierarchy. Legal documents are dense, so the interface needed to separate critical clauses from routine ones at a glance. I explored multiple layouts, testing combinations of visual grouping, progressive disclosure, and emphasis to reduce cognitive load, for example using highlighted flags and priority markers to signal risk levels without requiring full reading.
Three design patterns emerged from that process. Plain language summaries replaced dense legal text with concise, scannable insights. Clause highlighting drew attention to risky or unclear terms. Categorisation grouped clauses by theme, covering areas like data usage, liability, and intellectual property rights, so users could navigate and prioritise without reading everything.
These decisions were driven by consistent user feedback that people wanted to scan for risk, not read for completeness. Speed and clarity mattered more than full coverage, which shaped how aggressively content was simplified and prioritised.
As the design developed, I iterated based on team feedback and feasibility constraints. Working with developers and legal input meant balancing simplicity with accuracy. Summaries had to reduce complexity without misrepresenting legal meaning. That tension shaped both the wording choices and how disclaimers were integrated into the interface, keeping them visible without breaking the reading flow.
The process moved from broad exploration to a focused, testable solution that allowed users to quickly surface and act on unsound clauses in context, without needing to interpret full legal documents.
Decisions & Trade-offs
One of the biggest decisions was scope. Competitor analysis showed most existing tools focused on narrow areas like cookie policies. We chose to cover the full Terms and Conditions document instead. That gave ClearTerms a clear market position, but it raised the complexity of what the design needed to communicate and organise for the user.
Once I mapped out user needs from research and outlined what a website would require, it became clear the scope exceeded what users needed. A Chrome extension was simpler, faster, and better suited to the problem. It put the solution where users encounter T&Cs, rather than asking them to seek it out separately, and left room to grow into a broader platform once a user base was established.
The revenue model was another deliberate trade-off. We went with freemium, keeping the core consumer tool free to build trust and drive organic growth. From a design perspective, this reinforced the case for the Chrome extension. The format adapts to fit within business websites and other digital products, making it a natural fit for the B2B side of the model too.
Feedback & Iteration
We ran consumer surveys and interviews early, and brought in legal professionals to review the concept. The product had to hold up legally and avoid misleading users about what AI-generated summaries can and can't guarantee. That shaped a lot of the design thinking around how information was presented.
Through the Akcela startup incubator we connected with advisors, including a Google contact and legal experts who stress tested the business plan. Their input pushed me to think harder about disclaimers and liability, areas I might have treated as secondary without that outside perspective.
To validate the design direction, our proof of concept flagged a subtle clause granting TikTok rights to a user's image and voice, something almost nobody would catch reading on their own. That result confirmed the design was surfacing the right information in a way users could act on.
Challenges & Learnings
Navigating the legal risk of using AI to interpret binding documents was one of the hardest parts. If the tool surfaces something inaccurate, a user could make a real decision based on wrong information. The design had to account for that. Strong disclaimers and liability waivers became a core part of the product, integrated into the interface rather than buried in small print.
Building trust raised a second challenge. Design can help earn user confidence through clarity, transparency, and a considered interface. But in this case, it was one tool among several. Endorsements, partnerships, and open communication about how the tool works mattered just as much as the interface itself. Recognising that pushed me to think more broadly about what the product needed to succeed.
The biggest learning was the value of structure under pressure. Having a clear phased plan, research, design, prototype, scale, kept the team aligned and stopped us trying to solve everything at once.
Collaboration
ClearTerms was a team effort. I worked with teammates in development, legal, and business strategy, and that mix was intentional. Bringing those different perspectives together made the project stronger.
The legal expert flagged that my summary UI was too definitive, which could create liability. I iterated the design to include key areas which are cited and highlightable to ensure full user clarity.
My role was centered on the UX and design work, from research to wireframes and final designs. The project required constant input from the full team. Decisions about the revenue model, the legal disclaimers, and the product format all fed into design choices.
We looked beyond the team early too. Through Akcela's incubator programme we accessed mentorship and free legal advice that shaped both the product and the design direction.
