7 ms·

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

by reisse 2y 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 2y ago
They could lose because of unfair business practices.
- Taek 2y 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 2y 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 2y ago
  Is it? It clearly says "Annual, billed monthly" and "Fee applies if you cancel after 14 days." next to the price.
  - Bluestrike2 2y 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
    - gruez 2y ago
      >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. Do you think "$500 biweekly" car ads, or "$2000/month" apartment rentals are the same? >"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]. I might be sympathetic to this reasoning if this was a $2 coffee or something, but $60/month is nothing to be sneezed at, and I'd expect buyers to read the very legible text under the price tag. Otherwise, this makes as much sense as complaining about supermarket price tags that show "$4" in huge font, and "/lb" in small font, claiming that it misled buyers into thinking an entire package of ground beef costs $4, because the $4 price tag "primed" them or whatever. >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. Okay but if you read most complaints, it's clear that they're not even aware that such early termination fee even existed. There's approximately zero people who were aware the termination fee existed, found it too hard to figure out what it actually was, but somehow still went with the "Annual, billed monthly" option. >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] This feels like grasping at straws. If we're going to invoke "people might get two numbers confused with each other", we might as well also invoke "people can't calculate dates properly, and therefore a 14 day cancellation window is misleading because they think 14 days = 2 weeks, and set up a cancellation reminder for the same day of the week 2 weeks afterwards, not realizing that would be just over 14 days and thus outside the window".
  - croes 2y ago
    They could write they get the blood of your first born. Just because it’s written doesn’t make it legal Ask the FTC what they think or at least thought before Trump https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40707558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40707558
    - gruez 2y ago
      >They could write they get the blood of your first born. Sounds like a pretty good deal given how much money you'd save and how drawing modest amounts of blood has basically zero downsides. >Just because it’s written doesn’t make it legal And just because you invoke "Just because it’s written doesn’t make it legal", doesn't make it invalid.
      - croes 2y ago
        That’s why I wrote they could lose not they would lose.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    What it doesn't say next to the price is that if you don't connect to the internet and allow your device to beg them for permission to use the thing you already purchased your software will stop working, or that if their servers are ever down or inaccessible for any reason you may not be able to use the software you paid for on your own machine. Adobe is a shit company. The business practices they use should be outlawed.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >What it doesn't say next to the price is that if you don't connect to the internet and allow your device to beg them for permission to use the thing you already purchased your software will stop working Neither does netflix. It also doesn't mention that photoshop doesn't run on linux. Are you going to complain about that as well? >or that if their servers are ever down or inaccessible for any reason you may not be able to use the software you paid for on your own machine Again, netfilx. Also, isn't there usually enough of a grace window that unless you're working off a cruise ship for months at a time, you'll be fine? This feels like a edge case that gets trotted out in comments than happens in reality.
      - badsectoracula 2y ago
        Netflix is an inherently online service, it does need the Internet to provide its primary function. An image editor is not an inherently online service.
wyclif 2y ago
Who are they going to sue in that scenario? They can't go after every user who pays with a throwaway card.
connicpu 2y ago
Reverse class action isn't a thing, there's no way to sue thousands of people all at once, so they'd have to bring their suit against every individual who did it. Costs would be guaranteed to be much higher than any possible recovery.
- baby_souffle 2y ago
  Why would they sue? Just send it to collections and let them sort it out?
  - notpushkin 2y ago
    Good luck finding Asfghjs Fghdjsk using only his email address, fdsfgsd@tempemail.test.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      They use the billing address. KYC makes it easy.
      - pizzaplatinum 2y ago
        Good luck finding Zyyzzyzx Balleyhew whose address on the temporary card is registered at PO Box 42069, Utqiagvik, AK
        lukan 2y ago
        And you can just get a card with a fake adress?
        hnuser123456 2y ago
        https://support.google.com/googlepay/answer/11234179?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform%3DAndroid https://support.google.com/googlepay/answer/11234179?hl=en&c...
r33b33 2y ago
How about fuck them then and do class action for illegitimate business practice. Also, lawsuits aren't real.
ddingus 2y ago
As others mention, a reverse "class action" isn't a thing. I see it a bit differently: A solid, high value contract should make sense. And guess what? When they do make sense, most people have no reason not to pay and they will, barring emergencies and the usual risks that play out in all business. Most people, myself included, would side with Adobe. The peeps need to pay up. However, when the contract is shady, abusive, just dripping with greed? A much higher percentage of people are gonna say, "fuck 'em! Plenty will find reasons too. And there is a higher inherent risk associated with all new accounts, potentially going as far as to raise it, while value dilution happens across the board to software subscriptions as a whole. Who wants all that noise? I am not sure whether the piece mentioned this or not (skimmed, Ok? LOL), but there are fairly strong second and third order effects playing out that are likely to persist for a very long time: Network effects: A pretty healthy slice of Adobe users, or forced users I could say, reach their hating peak every year. When I was skill building for creative work, Adobe hate was modest. Adobe love was higher than average too. So far, so good, right? Just half a decade later, I revisit this work about the time people could no longer buy the suite on physical media with a perpetual license. Hmmm... haters were right! That is exactly what they said Adobe was going to do. Some time after this change, and while watching how Adobe handles the users of one of their more hated acquisitions; namely, Alias and MAYA who came from industry culture that believes Autodesk could quite possibly be one of the worst to end up owning what many observers called "elite" or "career" type software packages with costs starting in the mid to high 4 figures and ending up a solid 5 figure purchase ... (Alias 10 forever hoo rah!) ... um, yeah, where was I? Yes, Hating Adobe solid now. Not ever going to be a potential customer. You are reading third order effects. People like me, and the very aggressive first order people are hard at work figuring out just how much they can do with alternatives and also realizing everything they can do with the OSS alternatives are publishing our work, sharing successes and when we are teachers, consultants, department heads, we de-recommend Adobe on sight, while at the same time being very forgiving as people ramp up on the other options. That catches the attention of many who would never have a clue if it were not for social media bringing us the very best drama like this. Takes years and real talent to grow a software business while also so damn consistently earning the hate. Amazing!
piyuv 2y ago
They sell the debts of the users who do this to law firms, which then collect those debts with scary legal letters. Works most of the time. I don’t know if those law firms actually follow with lawsuits when it doesn’t.

by reisse 2y ago

croes 2y ago

They could lose because of unfair business practices.

Taek 2y 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 2y 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 2y ago
Is it? It clearly says "Annual, billed monthly" and "Fee applies if you cancel after 14 days." next to the price.
- Bluestrike2 2y 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
  - gruez 2y ago
    >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. Do you think "$500 biweekly" car ads, or "$2000/month" apartment rentals are the same? >"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]. I might be sympathetic to this reasoning if this was a $2 coffee or something, but $60/month is nothing to be sneezed at, and I'd expect buyers to read the very legible text under the price tag. Otherwise, this makes as much sense as complaining about supermarket price tags that show "$4" in huge font, and "/lb" in small font, claiming that it misled buyers into thinking an entire package of ground beef costs $4, because the $4 price tag "primed" them or whatever. >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. Okay but if you read most complaints, it's clear that they're not even aware that such early termination fee even existed. There's approximately zero people who were aware the termination fee existed, found it too hard to figure out what it actually was, but somehow still went with the "Annual, billed monthly" option. >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] This feels like grasping at straws. If we're going to invoke "people might get two numbers confused with each other", we might as well also invoke "people can't calculate dates properly, and therefore a 14 day cancellation window is misleading because they think 14 days = 2 weeks, and set up a cancellation reminder for the same day of the week 2 weeks afterwards, not realizing that would be just over 14 days and thus outside the window".
- croes 2y ago
  They could write they get the blood of your first born. Just because it’s written doesn’t make it legal Ask the FTC what they think or at least thought before Trump https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40707558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40707558
  - gruez 2y ago
    >They could write they get the blood of your first born. Sounds like a pretty good deal given how much money you'd save and how drawing modest amounts of blood has basically zero downsides. >Just because it’s written doesn’t make it legal And just because you invoke "Just because it’s written doesn’t make it legal", doesn't make it invalid.
    - croes 2y ago
      That’s why I wrote they could lose not they would lose.
- autoexec 2y ago
  What it doesn't say next to the price is that if you don't connect to the internet and allow your device to beg them for permission to use the thing you already purchased your software will stop working, or that if their servers are ever down or inaccessible for any reason you may not be able to use the software you paid for on your own machine. Adobe is a shit company. The business practices they use should be outlawed.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >What it doesn't say next to the price is that if you don't connect to the internet and allow your device to beg them for permission to use the thing you already purchased your software will stop working Neither does netflix. It also doesn't mention that photoshop doesn't run on linux. Are you going to complain about that as well? >or that if their servers are ever down or inaccessible for any reason you may not be able to use the software you paid for on your own machine Again, netfilx. Also, isn't there usually enough of a grace window that unless you're working off a cruise ship for months at a time, you'll be fine? This feels like a edge case that gets trotted out in comments than happens in reality.
    - badsectoracula 2y ago
      Netflix is an inherently online service, it does need the Internet to provide its primary function. An image editor is not an inherently online service.

wyclif 2y ago

Who are they going to sue in that scenario? They can't go after every user who pays with a throwaway card.

connicpu 2y ago

Reverse class action isn't a thing, there's no way to sue thousands of people all at once, so they'd have to bring their suit against every individual who did it. Costs would be guaranteed to be much higher than any possible recovery.

baby_souffle 2y ago
Why would they sue? Just send it to collections and let them sort it out?
- notpushkin 2y ago
  Good luck finding Asfghjs Fghdjsk using only his email address, fdsfgsd@tempemail.test.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    They use the billing address. KYC makes it easy.
    - pizzaplatinum 2y ago
      Good luck finding Zyyzzyzx Balleyhew whose address on the temporary card is registered at PO Box 42069, Utqiagvik, AK
      - lukan 2y ago
        And you can just get a card with a fake adress?
        hnuser123456 2y ago
        https://support.google.com/googlepay/answer/11234179?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform%3DAndroid https://support.google.com/googlepay/answer/11234179?hl=en&c...

r33b33 2y ago

How about fuck them then and do class action for illegitimate business practice. Also, lawsuits aren't real.

ddingus 2y ago

As others mention, a reverse "class action" isn't a thing. I see it a bit differently: A solid, high value contract should make sense. And guess what? When they do make sense, most people have no reason not to pay and they will, barring emergencies and the usual risks that play out in all business. Most people, myself included, would side with Adobe. The peeps need to pay up. However, when the contract is shady, abusive, just dripping with greed? A much higher percentage of people are gonna say, "fuck 'em! Plenty will find reasons too. And there is a higher inherent risk associated with all new accounts, potentially going as far as to raise it, while value dilution happens across the board to software subscriptions as a whole. Who wants all that noise? I am not sure whether the piece mentioned this or not (skimmed, Ok? LOL), but there are fairly strong second and third order effects playing out that are likely to persist for a very long time: Network effects: A pretty healthy slice of Adobe users, or forced users I could say, reach their hating peak every year. When I was skill building for creative work, Adobe hate was modest. Adobe love was higher than average too. So far, so good, right? Just half a decade later, I revisit this work about the time people could no longer buy the suite on physical media with a perpetual license. Hmmm... haters were right! That is exactly what they said Adobe was going to do. Some time after this change, and while watching how Adobe handles the users of one of their more hated acquisitions; namely, Alias and MAYA who came from industry culture that believes Autodesk could quite possibly be one of the worst to end up owning what many observers called "elite" or "career" type software packages with costs starting in the mid to high 4 figures and ending up a solid 5 figure purchase ... (Alias 10 forever hoo rah!) ... um, yeah, where was I? Yes, Hating Adobe solid now. Not ever going to be a potential customer. You are reading third order effects. People like me, and the very aggressive first order people are hard at work figuring out just how much they can do with alternatives and also realizing everything they can do with the OSS alternatives are publishing our work, sharing successes and when we are teachers, consultants, department heads, we de-recommend Adobe on sight, while at the same time being very forgiving as people ramp up on the other options. That catches the attention of many who would never have a clue if it were not for social media bringing us the very best drama like this. Takes years and real talent to grow a software business while also so damn consistently earning the hate. Amazing!

piyuv 2y ago

They sell the debts of the users who do this to law firms, which then collect those debts with scary legal letters. Works most of the time. I don’t know if those law firms actually follow with lawsuits when it doesn’t.