3 ms·
I encountered this with Adobe Acrobat DC, but managed to get out without paying the cancellation fee. I contacted customer support and asked to upgrade to a mo
by aravindet 5y ago
I encountered this with Adobe Acrobat DC, but managed to get out without paying the cancellation fee.
I contacted customer support and asked to upgrade to a more expensive SMB plan for a different but related product (Adobe Sign). I also demanded the first 14 days free, as that product advertizes a 14 day trial.
As I suspected, they could not make this complex change with their internal tools, so they offered to cancel Acrobat DC for me so I could sign up directly for the trial of the more expensive product.
As it happens, I changed my mind after the cancellation was completed. ;-)
If they had been able to do what I asked, I might have requested a change in billing country into or out of the EU or US - this is often complex for tax reasons. If their tools are capable of everything I could think of, I might still change my mind around the final confirmation stage.
Here is the pricing page:
- https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pricing.html?promoid=88X75PK9&mv=other# https://acrobat.adobe.com/us/en/acrobat/pricing.html?promoid...
It does mention "Requires annual commitment.", but in a vastly less noticeable style than "Best value".
(Legal theorizing, IANAL and all that)
Contract law requires a "meeting of the minds". Ordinarily, a written contract is evidence of where exactly the minds met - but there are exceptions. For instance, website ToS are not really enforceable. ("By using this website, you agree to sell me your house for $1?".)
I would argue that for most people buying Adobe products with an easily missed cancellation fee, there is no meeting of the minds and the contract should not be valid.
A good test for this might be to ask 100 randomly selected customers about the terms of the contract. If a majority aren't aware, it is reasonable to conclude that this information isn't conveyed adequately and that part of the contract should not be enforceable. I've never heard of anything like this happening in practice, though.