Hacker News Reader

Comment by arrosenberg | Hacker News Reader

> I think they promoted a yearly subscription that was meant to look like a monthly subscription, where if you cancelled early they would charge you an exorbitant cancellation fee. I'm not sure how these new rules affect them.

I don't think it's the same situation. What Adobe was doing was offering a yearly subscription, charged monthly. If you tried to cancel, it would ask for payment to either cover the rest of the sub or to cover the "savings" that the user had obtained by selecting an annual sub rather than a true monthly (can't remember what exactly it tried to charge). It was deceptive as hell, but it's probably not covered by this rule.

View on HN

I mean, maybe technically.

But the "its yearly with a cancellation fee" was not qualified in the sales information on the sign-up page. Maybe it was in the fine print.

Given that customers are quite used to a monthly fee is a monthly subscription model, it was disingenuous at best. Putting significant terms in the fine print doesn't exactly engender trust.

https://imgur.com/a/ldhiEtf

There is no fine print. It is extremely clear and obvious. If you see a term called "Annual paid monthly", 33% less expensive than a monthly option right above, what possible other interpretation can someone have?

I'm glad you're bringing screenshots to the conversation because so often people just talk about what they feel without grounding it in anything.

What the screenshot makes clear is that you'd have to be a single-celled organism to not understand what you're signing up for...

The screen is extremely clear, upfront and even the supposed "fine print" is in huge font with any easy link to learn more.

This is not how it was presented when I signed up, 8 years ago. I am aware of the differences between monthly and yearly subscriptions with discounts.

8 years is a long time in life and in business.

I think they clarified it more recently, because the FTC is taking a separate action against them on this specific issue. I doubt there would have been much of an issue if it had been that clear in the first place.

https://natlawreview.com/article/ftc-targets-adobe-hidden-fe...

A few years ago it still had the three options (monthly, annual billed monthly and annual prepaid) but didn't -- at least on the first page, though it did when you confirmed your transaction -- have the specific notice about an early termination fee. It still seemed like something where any rational person would ask themselves "what sort of idiot would pay 33% more for `monthly' when there's this no downside annual paid monthly thing? Got em!", but I guess there was some argument for being bamboozled.

But it is the way it is now for at least three+ years. People are still thinking they're beating the system.

Does it try to ensnare users trying to save some money now? Sure, it does. It offers some revenue planning for Adobe in return for a discount. The FTC is basically arguing that there shouldn't be such a discount.

In either case, my grounds for cancelling early really had nothing to do with the year-long case.

My grounds for cancelling is that the software didn't work. And I don't mean in some qualitative sense. The software would just crash when opening files or creating new files.

Adobe never held up their end of the bargain - providing functioning software.

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-prev...

This was ~8 years ago. I am fairly careful when signing up for services and subscriptions, having learned hard lessons when signing up for gym memberships in the 1900s.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com