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
Research came before 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.
The core goal became clear. Enable users to identify risky clauses without reading the full document. Early exploration looked at 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, and priority markers to signal risk levels without requiring full reading.
Three design patterns came out of that process. Plain language summaries replaced dense legal text with scannable insights. Clause highlighting flagged risky or unclear terms. Categorisation grouped clauses by theme, covering areas like data usage, liability, and intellectual property, so users could navigate without reading everything.
As the design developed I iterated based on team feedback and feasibility constraints. Summaries had to simplify content without misrepresenting legal meaning. That tension shaped both wording choices and how disclaimers were integrated, keeping them visible without breaking the reading flow.
Defining the product’s personality helped establish a clear identity, tone of voice, and set of values
Decisions & Trade-offs
Competitor analysis showed most existing tools focused on narrow areas like cookie policies. We chose to cover the full Terms and Conditions document. That gave ClearTerms a clear market position but raised the complexity of what the design needed to communicate and organise.
The revenue model was another deliberate decision. 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 fits within business websites and other digital products, making it a natural match for the B2B side of the model too.
ToS;DR is a direct competitor, but their platform breaks the user's flow, pulling them away to a separate website. The Chrome extension removes that friction by working in context.
Feedback & Iteration
We ran consumer surveys and interviews early, then brought in legal professionals to review the concept. Through the Akcela startup incubator we connected with advisors including a Google contact and legal experts whose input pushed me to think harder about disclaimers and liability.
To validate the 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
The hardest part of this project wasn't the interface. It was designing around the legal risk of using AI to interpret binding documents. If the tool surfaces something inaccurate, a user could make a real decision based on wrong information. Strong disclaimers became a core part of the product, integrated into the interface rather than hidden in small print.
Building trust raised a second challenge. Clarity and transparency in the interface mattered, but they weren't enough on their own. Endorsements, partnerships, and honest communication about how the tool works were just as important. Recognising that pushed me to think beyond the screen.
Collaboration
ClearTerms was a team effort across development, legal, and business strategy. My role covered the UX and design work from research through to final designs, but the project required constant input from the full team. Decisions about the revenue model, legal disclaimers, and product format all fed directly into design choices.
The legal expert reviewing the concept flagged that my summary UI was too definitive, which could create liability. That feedback pushed me to iterate the design. Key areas became cited and highlightable so users could verify the source text themselves, keeping clarity without overstating what an AI-generated summary can guarantee.
AI interpreted design
“The best way to predict the future is to create it.” — Peter Drucker
© 2026 Benjamin Segall