The Phrase "Included But Not Limited To" Explained — And Why It Drives Some People Crazy
You've seen it a hundred times. Every terms of service, every disclaimer, every formal document seems to contain it: "included but not limited to." It shows up in job descriptions, in contracts, in those long legal paragraphs nobody reads. And if you're anything like me, you've probably paused on it at least once and thought: wait, isn't that redundant?
Here's the thing — you're not wrong for noticing. The phrase is genuinely weird when you stop and think about it. But there's a reason it persists, and understanding why might change how you see legal language entirely.
What Does "Included But Not Limited To" Actually Mean?
At its core, "included but not limited to" is a phrase writers use to introduce a list of examples while signaling that the list isn't exhaustive. It's a way of saying: "Here are some things that apply, but there might be others I haven't mentioned."
The construction typically looks like this:
"We accept all major credit cards, included but not limited to Visa, Mastercard, and American Express."
Or in legal contexts:
"The following activities are prohibited, included but not limited to: harassment, theft, vandalism, and trespassing."
The intent is to leave room for things not explicitly listed. The writer is saying: "Don't assume this list is complete just because I've given you examples."
The Non-Exhaustive List
You might also encounter "including but not limited to" — which is actually the more common version. Still, both mean the same thing. Think about it: the "included" versus "including" distinction is mostly a matter of style and preference. Some legal drafters prefer the present participle "including" because it feels slightly more dynamic, but functionally, they're identical Still holds up..
You'll also see the Latin equivalent: inter alia, which means "among other things." Same idea, fancier outfit.
Why Do People Use This Phrase? (And Why It Feels Redundant)
Here's where it gets interesting. Because of that, the criticism that "included but not limited to" is redundant has some real weight. After all, if something is "included," by definition it's part of the group. Saying it's "not limited to" that group seems to contradict the inclusion Not complicated — just consistent..
And yeah — that's actually more nuanced than it sounds.
But there's a logic to it, even if it's clunky.
The phrase exists because writers want to achieve two things simultaneously:
- Provide concrete examples — giving readers something specific to understand the scope
- Reserve the right to enforce beyond those examples — keeping the door open for future situations
In legal and formal writing, this matters. A company that says "we ban harassment" might have trouble enforcing that ban against a behavior they didn't specifically list. By saying "included but not limited to harassment," they're creating a broader framework they can point to if someone does something unexpected.
It's a CYA move — cover your ass — dressed up in formal language.
The Real Reason It Feels Off
The awkwardness comes from the fact that "included" and "not limited to" are pointing in opposite directions. "Included" says "here's what's in." "Not limited to" says "here's not the full picture." Putting them together creates a slight cognitive dissonance.
It's like saying "here's a sample, but it's not a sample." Your brain stumbles for a half-second.
That's why some writers prefer cleaner alternatives. More on that in a bit.
How to Use "Included But Not Limited To" Correctly
If you're going to use this phrase, there are a few things to get right.
Use It for Enumerations
The phrase only makes sense when you're listing examples. It doesn't work on its own:
❌ "This offer is included but not limited to."
That sentence goes nowhere. You need the examples to follow:
✅ "The following benefits are included but not limited to: health insurance, paid time off, and retirement matching."
Put It Before the List
The standard structure is: phrase → colon → examples. Like this:
"The following categories apply, included but not limited to: A, B, and C."
Some writers flip it and say "including but not limited to" — that's equally correct and arguably more common. Pick whichever sounds better to your ear.
Don't Overuse It
We're talking about the big one. If you slap "included but not limited to" on every single list, your writing becomes unreadable. Now, it becomes noise. Use it when you genuinely need to signal that the list is non-exhaustive — not as a default phrase for every enumeration.
Common Mistakes People Make
Mistake #1: Using it when the list is actually exhaustive.
If you're giving a complete list, don't use this phrase. It creates false ambiguity:
❌ "The colors available are included but not limited to: red, blue, and green."
If those are the only colors, just say "the colors available are: red, blue, and green." The phrase adds nothing and confuses the reader.
Mistake #2: Putting it after the examples.
The phrase needs to come before the list, not after:
❌ "We offer Visa, Mastercard, and American Express, included but not limited to."
That reads like an afterthought and doesn't achieve the intended legal purpose.
Mistake #3: Mixing it with "etc."
This is redundant squared:
❌ "We accept Visa, Mastercard, American Express, etc., included but not limited to."
Pick one. Either use "etc." or use "included but not limited to" — not both.
Better Alternatives (And When to Use Them)
Here's the honest truth: there are cleaner ways to say "included but not limited to." Many style guides and legal drafters prefer alternatives that don't carry the same linguistic awkwardness.
"Such as" — This is the most common replacement, and it does the same job without the clunkiness:
"We accept major credit cards such as Visa, Mastercard, and American Express."
The word "such as" implicitly signals non-exhaustiveness. Readers understand it means "for example."
"Including" — Similar to "such as":
"The following benefits are included: health insurance, paid time off, retirement matching, and more."
The "and more" does the work of "not limited to" without saying it explicitly No workaround needed..
"Among other things" — A bit more formal, but clear:
"Among other things, the following activities are prohibited."
Just list it without commentary — Sometimes you don't need to signal non-exhaustiveness at all. If the context makes it clear, skip the phrase entirely:
"We accept Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Discover, and Diners Club."
No phrase needed. The length of the list implies it's probably not exhaustive.
Practical Tips for Your Own Writing
If you're drafting something and wondering whether to use "included but not limited to," here's my advice:
Use it sparingly. Reserve it for situations where the non-exhaustive nature actually matters — like legal disclaimers, terms of service, or situations where you might need to enforce rules against behaviors not explicitly listed Easy to understand, harder to ignore..
Consider your audience. If you're writing for a general audience, "such as" or "including" will almost always read better. Save the fuller phrase for contexts where legal precision matters But it adds up..
Read it out loud. If the sentence feels clunky when you say it, it probably is. Trust your ear Easy to understand, harder to ignore..
Don't use it as a crutch. If you find yourself typing "included but not limited to" automatically, pause. Ask yourself: do I actually need this? Often, you don't.
FAQ
Is "included but not limited to" grammatically correct?
Yes, it's grammatically correct. It's just awkward. The phrase functions as a non-exhaustive list indicator, which is a legitimate grammatical purpose — but You've got smoother ways worth knowing here.
What's the difference between "included but not limited to" and "including but not limited to"?
Practically none. "Including" is more common, especially in American legal writing. In practice, both mean the same thing. Use whichever sounds better to you.
Can I use "included but not limited to" in informal writing?
You can, but you probably shouldn't. That's why it sounds overly formal and legalistic in casual contexts. "Such as" or "like" works much better in blog posts, emails, and everyday writing.
Does using this phrase actually protect legally?
In many jurisdictions, yes — it's become a standard legal formulation precisely because courts have recognized it as signaling non-exhaustiveness. But if you're writing something with real legal stakes, consult an actual lawyer. Language nuances matter in contracts, and a professional drafter will know the specific conventions in your jurisdiction Surprisingly effective..
What's a good alternative that sounds natural?
"Such as" is the winner. Still, it's clear, it's natural, and it does the same job without making readers stumble. "For example" and "including" work well too That's the part that actually makes a difference..
The Bottom Line
"Included but not limited to" isn't wrong — it's just unnecessarily clunky for most situations. It does what it claims to do, but it does it in a way that makes readers do a double-take. The phrase persists because legal drafters are conservative (they stick with what works, even when it's awkward) and because it genuinely serves a purpose in contexts where scope matters.
For the rest of your writing? On the flip side, you have better options. "Such as" will get you 90% of the way there, and your readers won't have to mentally untangle a slight linguistic contradiction to understand what you mean.
Sometimes the best writing choice isn't the most comprehensive one — it's the one that gets out of the reader's way Worth keeping that in mind..
