That's why you always use throwaway cards for this.
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.
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).
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.
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".
> Do you think "$500 biweekly" car ads, or "$2000/month" apartment rentals are the same?
The rentals make it very clear what the contract period is and what the penalty for breaking early is. Those terms are also tightly regulated in most jurisdictions for exactly the reason that they are prone to abuse.
> I'd expect buyers to read the very legible text under the price tag.
Given that the text fails to provide details about the fee is this even a valid contract to begin with? On multiple levels there's clearly been no meeting of the minds.
> if you read most complaints, it's clear that they're not even aware that such early termination fee even existed.
Isn't that a strong case that it's an unfair practice?
On the billboard or in the multi-page rental agreement that they send for you to sign? How is this different from than the ToS/fine print on adobe's site?
>Given that the text fails to provide details about the fee is this even a valid contract to begin with?
It's probably buried in the fine print somewhere, which courts have generally held to be enforceable.
>Isn't that a strong case that it's an unfair practice?
No, the legal standard is "reasonable person", not whether there's enough people bamboozled by it to raise a ruckus on reddit or whatever.
I have had plenty of other issues with borderline dishonest landlords but mutually understanding what was being agreed to up front was never one of them. The issues generally came later when they tried to get out of or add additional things without my consent.
> It's probably buried in the fine print somewhere, which courts have generally held to be enforceable.
People elsewhere in this comment section reported that they checked and claimed that it is not found anywhere directly linked from the sales page. You generally have to specify the terms of a contract up front, before it is signed.
> No, the legal standard is "reasonable person"
It isn't conclusive, but I think it makes for a strong case. The more people who are confused by it the stronger your argument that it is confusing to a "reasonable person" becomes.
In some things, expectations are made to be disappointed. This is one of those.
We know that people use all sorts of cognitive shortcuts to make processing their environments easier. It doesn't matter if you're smart, dumb, foolish, or perfectly average. It's just how our brains have evolved to function, and companies have been consulting with industrial and organizational psychologists for decades to help them optimize their marketing and business strategies to maximize the chances that those shortcuts play out in a way that breaks in their favor. Before I/O psychologists, companies tried to do the same by guess and trial and error...and they stumbled upon lots of strategies that were later confirmed by psychological experiments.
Cereal boxes marketed to children have cartoon characters whose eyes are drawn looking down so as to appear as if they're making eye contact with kids walking down the cereal aisle.[0] There are all sorts of "tricks" commonly used by salespeople selling things to sophisticated buyers who are capable of recognize them for what they are. Why did pharma reps take doctors to dinner and give them cheap pens and swag? Or consider the success of psychological pricing[1] and how those strategies somehow manage to be successful despite it being commonly accepted wisdom that odd prices (i.e. $1.99 instead of $2) is a marketing gimmick. We know it's a gimmick, and yet, it still has an impact on our buying behavior.
Yes, the text is there below it, but the whole point of a dark pattern is to manipulate a large enough percentage of buyers/users in a way that generates more revenue than is lost due to any frustration or annoyance created by the same patterns. Most people skim through websites, pluck out key words, and continue on. We can bemoan people for not reading the fine print, but that's not going to change the behavior.
As for the beef metaphor, per unit pricing can absolutely be used to trip up would-be buyers into buying a bit more than they planned. Not because the foolish shoppers don't know any better, but because mixed units usually require a bit more cognitive engagement. Grocery stores absolutely recognize that and benefit from it. On the other hand, you can't really sell beef in a way other than by weight, so it's the opportunity for abuse is much more limited.
> 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.
Sure, because Adobe purposely hides information about the fee. That's one of the dark pattern at play. In the absence of that information, users will insert their own expectations to create meaning. If there's a fee, we'd expect it's probably a reasonable one (even if we have countless examples in our lives of how fees can be anything but reasonable). Does half the annual cost of a subscription seem reasonable to most people? Would that be most people's first guess? Probably not. I might not have been clear about this in my original comment, but there are multiple dark patterns at work here.
> This feels like grasping at straws. If we're going to invoke "people might get two numbers confused with each other",[...]
That particular dark pattern is less about people confusing two different numbers with each other when they're directly in front of them, so much as it is about giving you two different numbers to remember two weeks after you've made your decision and gone on with your life. Literally nobody on the planet is going to keep the free trial or cancellation period as a mental priority over the course of two weeks, so it becomes little more than a random thought at the back of your mind. At best, you might jot it down or set aside the receipt until closer to the deadline. The pattern's purpose is that, if you think of the cancellation/trial periods at all, the numbers will be easily conflated. Think about the times in your life when you've asked yourself something like did I see/do/hear [insert thing] last Monday or was it Tuesday? and weren't quite confident in your answer.
Dark patterns doesn't have to trip up all subscribers or even most of them. But if it trips up a some of them, well, Adobe isn't going to complain about the opportunity. Multiple, more subtle dark patterns together can work just as effectively as one particularly vicious one. They can even be preferable, in that they won't piss off your customers nearly as much, either on their own or as a whole.
0. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/04/food-psychologists-...
Just because it’s written doesn’t make it legal
Ask the FTC what they think or at least thought before Trump
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.
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.
An image editor is not an inherently online service.
A prepaid Visa/MC/Amex gift card might work, but those are easily blockable. I’d expect Adobe to do so.
The billing your credit card 50% is a "well we tried" type thing. They're happy if it works out, but not unhappy if it doesn't.
We are reaching a critical mass of people who have no buy-in to these structures because they've been previously cut out.
It was an error on their part so take that as you will, but... scary letter != inability to borrow money.
(And just for the record, I no longer subscribe to that rag.)
A rather famous example of this is when Columbia House sold off accounts from their scammy operation to a debt collection agency, with many folks unaware that the company claimed they owed money.
True, and it sucks, but you can also keep contesting it. I got a few random things off my credit by using the tools provided by the credit agencies to contest them.
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!
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.
Last I used Revolut 2 years ago, they even had a "disposable" virtual card, meaning after 1 charge it's automatically deleted.
It's a little counter-intuitive to introduce another party to improve privacy. I find it worthwhile for the pausable and vendor-locked cards.
> 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.
It's also very obviously not against the payment network rules, otherwise privacy.com wouldn't be actively participating.
Note, their name isn't SpendingLimit.com.
This shook me plenty and I no longer use them for anything I actually need a spending limit on. They're still good for their namesake privacy, with a very limited scope (i.e. scummy merchants), but it's a very thin veil and easy to pierce.