40 ms·

> actually an "annual plan, billed monthly" and thus that if they cancel after one month (for example) they'll be billed for the remaining 11 immediately I don

by devsda 1y ago

> actually an "annual plan, billed monthly" and thus that if they cancel after one month (for example) they'll be billed for the remaining 11 immediately I don't know if this is a recent policy change, but it is not the complete amount but only 50% of the remaining annual amount as per their website[1]. If it were something involving physical goods or services I can understand, but 50% penalty is still a crazy amount for a hosted software service. 1. https://www.adobe.com/legal/subscription-terms.html https://www.adobe.com/legal/subscription-terms.html

r33b33 1y ago
That's why you always use throwaway cards for this.
- fc417fc802 1y ago
  I would be too lazy to bother with a throwaway in almost all circumstances, but I would 100% attempt a charge back in anger. I'm uncertain how my bank would ultimately respond though.
  - bravetraveler 1y ago
    Throwaways/virtual cards are my default state. If it's worth subscribing, it's worth the seconds it takes to generate and copy. Think about it: you're in control. Not being at the mercy of... whoever is great. You said it yourself: attempt. Why play with your money? The toys/experiences it can afford are way more fun. Chargebacks are more effort, and IIRC, weigh negatively on you as well. Can only do so many. I expect your bank would take issue if you really relied on this strategy. Painful to unsub? How terrible for them. I can be painful to bill. PLONK says the pause button. Learned everything I needed to know from gyms. If they don't take a virtual card, but want bank details/etc... they're on some bullshit. Pass.
    - maayank 1y ago
      How do you make virtual cards?
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - sensanaty 1y ago
        Lots of banks have them these days. In the US there's also stuff like privacy.com (unaffiliated, not even in the US personally :p) Last I used Revolut 2 years ago, they even had a "disposable" virtual card, meaning after 1 charge it's automatically deleted.
        bravetraveler 1y ago
        Aye, 'privacy.com' is who I go with. Would prefer a first-party solution like other countries/financial services. It's a little counter-intuitive to introduce another party to improve privacy. I find it worthwhile for the pausable and vendor-locked cards.
        myself248 1y ago
        They can force-post right past Privacy.com's veil, NYTimes did it to me. Here's what Privacy's support rep had to say about it: > Hi, Firstname > I've been reviewing your dispute and wanted to touch base with you to explain what happened. > It appears that the disputed charge is a "force post" by the merchant. This happens when a merchant cannot collect funds for a transaction after repeated attempts and completes the transaction without an authorization — it's literally an unauthorized transaction that's against payment card network rules. It's a pretty sneaky move used by some merchants, and unfortunately, it's not something Privacy can block.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        How does the force post get to you though? Surely that involves privacy.com participating.
    - FireBeyond 1y ago
      Absolutely, you have excessive chargebacks and you will find your credit card issuer “opting to end their relationship with you”.
      - fc417fc802 1y ago
        It's rather off topic though. To date I've only encountered dispute worthy things approximately once or twice a decade. I feel the Adobe example would qualify if it happened to me though, despite the fact that it sounds as though I'd likely lose on that one.
  - gruez 1y ago
    Adobe did a pretty good job at disclosing the "annual plan, billed monthly" aspect so they'll likely win any chargebacks. That said, your bank might just cave and reimburse you out of pocket.
- reisse 1y ago
  Of course it's highly unlikely they'll go in court for a single user, but if everyone starts doing this, they'll sue. It doesn't matter the payment failed, you still legally owe Adobe (or any other service) money.
  - croes 1y ago
    They could lose because of unfair business practices.
    - Taek 1y ago
      Elaborating on this, it's almost certainly a civil case that goes to arbitration, which really means that the arbitrator has to feel like Adobe is in the right. It's quite informal relative to typical legal settings, and if the arbitrator doesn't feel like siding with Adobe... they won't. Furthermore, it's going to cost Adobe a minimum of $1500 to even bring the case to arbitration, and probably $15k more in legal fees to actually win. So yes, it's actually a difficult battle for Adobe to win and the costs will be much higher than the payout.
      - brookst 1y ago
        This. Adobe knows this. It’s a numbers game; if they have an honest monthly subscription and someone cancels, they get nothing. If they have this scammy subscription and they collect 50% of the remainder for 50% of people, it’s like a free 25% (of the remaining “annual” term).
    - gruez 1y ago
      Is it? It clearly says "Annual, billed monthly" and "Fee applies if you cancel after 14 days." next to the price.
      - Bluestrike2 1y ago
        This is a bit longer than I would have wanted to spend writing about Adobe billing practices, but oh well. Is it the most manipulative dark pattern in e-commerce? Hardly--there are plenty far more vicious--but it's still an attempt to prime a would-be subscriber to focus on the annual, billed monthly and play on their understanding of the word "monthly" by using it in both options. "Annual, billed monthly" is set in smaller italicized type right under the actual price of US$59.99/mo on the main pricing page[0]. You've now been primed to focus on the $59.99 price. Only when you select a plan and a modal pops up do you see that there's a separate monthly option available from the annual, billed monthly option that's been helpfully pre-selected or a third annual, prepaid option. The point is to quickly shepherd subscribers through the payment process. The user sees the $59.99 option they expected is pre-selected, so most hit continue and move on. If they look beyond the price in bold to the plan descriptions in smaller italics, well, there are literally decades of eye tracking studies showing users skim websites rather than carefully reading every single word. The price in bold draws in the eye, the word "monthly" is present so the user catches the word, and then they move on to the continue button. Adobe could have easily labeled the plan Annual, billed in 12 installments or even Annual, billed in monthly installments to better differentiate the two options. They didn't for a reason. The word "monthly" comes with certain expectations. Using it for both the actual monthly plan and the default annual, billed monthly plan allows those expectations to bleed over to both. While it mentions a fee for cancelling after 14 days, you'll find nary a mention of what that fee actually is until you track down a legal page[1] that isn't linked to any point during the payment process up until the sign-in prompt (I didn't bother creating a new account to look beyond that). At the very least, it's not present during the stage when you're still relatively uncommitted and somewhat more likely to notice any more onerous terms were they present. Finally, there's an option for a 30-day free trial of Adobe Stock. I'd have sworn it was pre-selected a few years ago, but I may be mistaken on that. If it was, then at least that's a change for the better. Anyhow, did you notice how it's on a 30 day trial period whereas the normal plan has a 14 day cancellation window? Let those deadlines fall to the back of your mind for a week or two, and will you remember which is 14 days and which is 30? There was no reason why Adobe had to use 30 days for Stock or only 14 days for their other offerings. But it adds to the confusion, and that's the entire purpose of a dark pattern. Stock is also an "annual, billed monthly plan," but nowhere in the checkout process is it mentioned that Stock also has a large cancellation fee. That's hidden in a separate part of the Subscription Terms page.[1] Adobe could easily just choose to settle for a straight-up monthly payment plan with no bullshit and completely sidestep recurring--but largely toothless, given the state of most alternatives to their software--criticism over their billing practices. They could eliminate the dark patterns and make their plan selection and payment process more transparent. They don't, presumably because those patterns generate more revenue than the lost goodwill they create is worth. That goodwill is diffused, and even if people grumble about it online, it generally doesn't rise to the level of leaving. 0. https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/plans.html https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/plans.html 1. https://www.adobe.com/legal/subscription-terms.html https://www.adobe.com/legal/subscription-terms.html
- akudha 1y ago
  Or better, just avoid companies like Adobe as much as possible. It is not like they are the only game in town anymore, right?
  - lrem 1y ago
    Not the only... But for many hobbyists the effort to relearn is too much to save a bit of money.

by devsda 1y ago

r33b33 1y ago

That's why you always use throwaway cards for this.

fc417fc802 1y ago
I would be too lazy to bother with a throwaway in almost all circumstances, but I would 100% attempt a charge back in anger. I'm uncertain how my bank would ultimately respond though.
- bravetraveler 1y ago
  Throwaways/virtual cards are my default state. If it's worth subscribing, it's worth the seconds it takes to generate and copy. Think about it: you're in control. Not being at the mercy of... whoever is great. You said it yourself: attempt. Why play with your money? The toys/experiences it can afford are way more fun. Chargebacks are more effort, and IIRC, weigh negatively on you as well. Can only do so many. I expect your bank would take issue if you really relied on this strategy. Painful to unsub? How terrible for them. I can be painful to bill. PLONK says the pause button. Learned everything I needed to know from gyms. If they don't take a virtual card, but want bank details/etc... they're on some bullshit. Pass.
  - maayank 1y ago
    How do you make virtual cards?
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - sensanaty 1y ago
      Lots of banks have them these days. In the US there's also stuff like privacy.com (unaffiliated, not even in the US personally :p) Last I used Revolut 2 years ago, they even had a "disposable" virtual card, meaning after 1 charge it's automatically deleted.
      - bravetraveler 1y ago
        Aye, 'privacy.com' is who I go with. Would prefer a first-party solution like other countries/financial services. It's a little counter-intuitive to introduce another party to improve privacy. I find it worthwhile for the pausable and vendor-locked cards.
      - myself248 1y ago
        They can force-post right past Privacy.com's veil, NYTimes did it to me. Here's what Privacy's support rep had to say about it: > Hi, Firstname > I've been reviewing your dispute and wanted to touch base with you to explain what happened. > It appears that the disputed charge is a "force post" by the merchant. This happens when a merchant cannot collect funds for a transaction after repeated attempts and completes the transaction without an authorization — it's literally an unauthorized transaction that's against payment card network rules. It's a pretty sneaky move used by some merchants, and unfortunately, it's not something Privacy can block.
        Dylan16807 1y ago
        How does the force post get to you though? Surely that involves privacy.com participating.
  - FireBeyond 1y ago
    Absolutely, you have excessive chargebacks and you will find your credit card issuer “opting to end their relationship with you”.
    - fc417fc802 1y ago
      It's rather off topic though. To date I've only encountered dispute worthy things approximately once or twice a decade. I feel the Adobe example would qualify if it happened to me though, despite the fact that it sounds as though I'd likely lose on that one.
- gruez 1y ago
  Adobe did a pretty good job at disclosing the "annual plan, billed monthly" aspect so they'll likely win any chargebacks. That said, your bank might just cave and reimburse you out of pocket.
reisse 1y ago
Of course it's highly unlikely they'll go in court for a single user, but if everyone starts doing this, they'll sue. It doesn't matter the payment failed, you still legally owe Adobe (or any other service) money.
- croes 1y ago
  They could lose because of unfair business practices.
  - Taek 1y ago
    Elaborating on this, it's almost certainly a civil case that goes to arbitration, which really means that the arbitrator has to feel like Adobe is in the right. It's quite informal relative to typical legal settings, and if the arbitrator doesn't feel like siding with Adobe... they won't. Furthermore, it's going to cost Adobe a minimum of $1500 to even bring the case to arbitration, and probably $15k more in legal fees to actually win. So yes, it's actually a difficult battle for Adobe to win and the costs will be much higher than the payout.
    - brookst 1y ago
      This. Adobe knows this. It’s a numbers game; if they have an honest monthly subscription and someone cancels, they get nothing. If they have this scammy subscription and they collect 50% of the remainder for 50% of people, it’s like a free 25% (of the remaining “annual” term).
  - gruez 1y ago
    Is it? It clearly says "Annual, billed monthly" and "Fee applies if you cancel after 14 days." next to the price.
    - Bluestrike2 1y ago
      This is a bit longer than I would have wanted to spend writing about Adobe billing practices, but oh well. Is it the most manipulative dark pattern in e-commerce? Hardly--there are plenty far more vicious--but it's still an attempt to prime a would-be subscriber to focus on the annual, billed monthly and play on their understanding of the word "monthly" by using it in both options. "Annual, billed monthly" is set in smaller italicized type right under the actual price of US$59.99/mo on the main pricing page[0]. You've now been primed to focus on the $59.99 price. Only when you select a plan and a modal pops up do you see that there's a separate monthly option available from the annual, billed monthly option that's been helpfully pre-selected or a third annual, prepaid option. The point is to quickly shepherd subscribers through the payment process. The user sees the $59.99 option they expected is pre-selected, so most hit continue and move on. If they look beyond the price in bold to the plan descriptions in smaller italics, well, there are literally decades of eye tracking studies showing users skim websites rather than carefully reading every single word. The price in bold draws in the eye, the word "monthly" is present so the user catches the word, and then they move on to the continue button. Adobe could have easily labeled the plan Annual, billed in 12 installments or even Annual, billed in monthly installments to better differentiate the two options. They didn't for a reason. The word "monthly" comes with certain expectations. Using it for both the actual monthly plan and the default annual, billed monthly plan allows those expectations to bleed over to both. While it mentions a fee for cancelling after 14 days, you'll find nary a mention of what that fee actually is until you track down a legal page[1] that isn't linked to any point during the payment process up until the sign-in prompt (I didn't bother creating a new account to look beyond that). At the very least, it's not present during the stage when you're still relatively uncommitted and somewhat more likely to notice any more onerous terms were they present. Finally, there's an option for a 30-day free trial of Adobe Stock. I'd have sworn it was pre-selected a few years ago, but I may be mistaken on that. If it was, then at least that's a change for the better. Anyhow, did you notice how it's on a 30 day trial period whereas the normal plan has a 14 day cancellation window? Let those deadlines fall to the back of your mind for a week or two, and will you remember which is 14 days and which is 30? There was no reason why Adobe had to use 30 days for Stock or only 14 days for their other offerings. But it adds to the confusion, and that's the entire purpose of a dark pattern. Stock is also an "annual, billed monthly plan," but nowhere in the checkout process is it mentioned that Stock also has a large cancellation fee. That's hidden in a separate part of the Subscription Terms page.[1] Adobe could easily just choose to settle for a straight-up monthly payment plan with no bullshit and completely sidestep recurring--but largely toothless, given the state of most alternatives to their software--criticism over their billing practices. They could eliminate the dark patterns and make their plan selection and payment process more transparent. They don't, presumably because those patterns generate more revenue than the lost goodwill they create is worth. That goodwill is diffused, and even if people grumble about it online, it generally doesn't rise to the level of leaving. 0. https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/plans.html https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/plans.html 1. https://www.adobe.com/legal/subscription-terms.html https://www.adobe.com/legal/subscription-terms.html
akudha 1y ago
Or better, just avoid companies like Adobe as much as possible. It is not like they are the only game in town anymore, right?
- lrem 1y ago
  Not the only... But for many hobbyists the effort to relearn is too much to save a bit of money.