Adobe’s hidden cancellation fee is unlawful, FTC suit says

[Doug]

Adobe’s hidden cancellation fee is unlawful, FTC suit says

Adobe knowingly "trapped" customers into annual subscriptions, the FTC alleged.

arstechnica.com

I have been a Lightroom user since version 2. Over the years, I have often been disappointed (at best) by Adobe's ethical behaviour in dealing with customers. This action by the FTC suggests that these issues have escalated to a concerning level - for those at the highest management levels. If the regulators can prove this, beneficial changes may occur. If not, the serious competition in the photo/video market will likely drive change. Does anyone else see this as a possibility?

Adobe's unethical practices towards customers have been a long-standing issue, and it's about time they face consequences for their actions. The FTC investigation is a promising sign that their questionable behaviour is finally being scrutinized at the highest levels. If the allegations are proven true, this could be a turning point for Adobe, forcing them to implement much-needed changes in their customer relations and business practices.

However, even if they evade accountability this time, the fierce competition in the photo/video industry will inevitably compel them to reform their ways. Companies prioritizing profits over customer satisfaction often face a reckoning as consumers become increasingly aware and intolerant of such practices. Adobe's market dominance cannot indefinitely shield them from the consequences of their actions. This situation presents an opportunity for Adobe to course-correct and regain the trust of its user base. Failure to do so will result in a significant loss of market share to competitors who prioritize ethical business practices and customer satisfaction.

Chime in on whether you agree with this enforcement action and think it will change Adobe's culture. Or if they will be knocked off the top of the photo-developing mountain.

 

[Mal Paso]

Slam Adobe's fingers in the Cash Drawer! They deserve it!

The people who write the great software are not the same people who run their security or squeeze every last dollar from consumers. I left after the 3rd time I was locked out of Paid For software and no customer service available on weekends to fix it!

Look for that hard to find on Adobe's site $10/mo Photoshop to go up.

 

[NorthernFocus]

I don't get the "hidden" fees. The fees/penalties are all explained when you sign up. Problem is no one bothers to read that stuff. Government is again just trying to absolve people of personal accountability. Most of the streaming services do the same things alleged in the lawsuit. They're just going after the deep pockets.

 

[Doug]

Time will tell if senior management, VP and Presidents transgressed any laws. Having deep pockets is not a defence for illegal profiteering if they did indeed screw the little guys. Sadly, the types of white-collar crimes are rarely even investigated. They are prohibitively expensive to bring to court
when deep pockets hire legal talent to obfuscate and delay. And even if they lose, those responsible are not typically held accountable. The shareholders end up paying. One thing I am sure of is that none of the board of directors will be held responsible.

 

[Woody Meristem]

It's that kind of stuff that keeps me from using PS or LR; unfortunately many, many other companies aren't much, if any, better.

 

[Mal Paso]

Time will tell if senior management, VP and Presidents transgressed any laws. Having deep pockets is not a defence for illegal profiteering if they did indeed screw the little guys. Sadly, the types of white-collar crimes are rarely even investigated. They are prohibitively expensive to bring to court
when deep pockets hire legal talent to obfuscate and delay. And even if they lose, those responsible are not typically held accountable. The shareholders end up paying. One thing I am sure of is that none of the board of directors will be held responsible.

I don't think the Photoshop division has deep pockets, they behave like they need every cent and have for years. I think they have too much overhead some of which is Security over the most stolen program ever. Don't know how you defuse that.

I have Never been able to get through to Adobe Customer Service. I've been a customer since Photoshop 3, spent $1000 for enough RAM to run it.

It's that kind of stuff that keeps me from using PS or LR; unfortunately many, many other companies aren't much, if any, better.

Affinity which is affordable, doesn't expire and goes on sale a lot if you really need a break.

 

[StefanSC]

I don't get the "hidden" fees. The fees/penalties are all explained when you sign up. Problem is no one bothers to read that stuff.

I do think the problem is that the stuff is burried in complex "legalese", small to read fonts and multiple linked documents, making it almost impossible to understand for the lay-person.

Reading is not understanding... if that were true, most lawyers, financial consultants and accountants would be out of a job

 

[Ian]

I walked away from Lightroom years ago. I didn't like their "ethics" or business model. I use ON1 now and I'm happy with that. Adobe can do what they like, they will never get a penny of my money

 

[EricBowles]

Adobe’s hidden cancellation fee is unlawful, FTC suit says

Adobe knowingly "trapped" customers into annual subscriptions, the FTC alleged.

arstechnica.com

I have been a Lightroom user since version 2. Over the years, I have often been disappointed (at best) by Adobe's ethical behaviour in dealing with customers. This action by the FTC suggests that these issues have escalated to a concerning level - for those at the highest management levels. If the regulators can prove this, beneficial changes may occur. If not, the serious competition in the photo/video market will likely drive change. Does anyone else see this as a possibility?

Adobe's unethical practices towards customers have been a long-standing issue, and it's about time they face consequences for their actions. The FTC investigation is a promising sign that their questionable behaviour is finally being scrutinized at the highest levels. If the allegations are proven true, this could be a turning point for Adobe, forcing them to implement much-needed changes in their customer relations and business practices.

However, even if they evade accountability this time, the fierce competition in the photo/video industry will inevitably compel them to reform their ways. Companies prioritizing profits over customer satisfaction often face a reckoning as consumers become increasingly aware and intolerant of such practices. Adobe's market dominance cannot indefinitely shield them from the consequences of their actions. This situation presents an opportunity for Adobe to course-correct and regain the trust of its user base. Failure to do so will result in a significant loss of market share to competitors who prioritize ethical business practices and customer satisfaction.

Chime in on whether you agree with this enforcement action and think it will change Adobe's culture. Or if they will be knocked off the top of the photo-developing mountain.

The claim here is pretty simple - Adobe Creative Cloud has a one year term with monthly payments. They offer a trial, but not a month to month plan to be used when needed. The agreement you accept when you enroll in the plan is clear about the terms - but some don't read the agreement or think what is clearly spelled out does not apply.

Here is what they show for the Photography plan with minimal cloud storage. It's quite clear about the Annual term which can be paid monthly or up front - but it's a year.

The Adobe plan is quite a bargain. Purchased individually, Lightroom was $149 up front and $79 every two years or so for updates. There were a lot of people who did not buy the latest version, and the terms were pretty flexible. Photoshop was at an additional cost - $699 up front and a major update every couple of years with a fee to update. The products I have today for $9.99/mo. include a number of AI related features, much better editing capabilities, and support for a wide range of new cameras and lenses. In addition, there is a host of free training and support from Adobe as well as third party support and training because it does have a 70% market share or more. The cost of the Photography Plan has not changed since the initial introduction twelve years ago. Most competitors have gone to cloud models at higher prices.

It will be interesting to see what happens with this litigation. There are people at the FTC that do not like any big business.

 

[EricBowles]

I do think the problem is that the stuff is burried in complex "legalese", small to read fonts and multiple linked documents, making it almost impossible to understand for the lay-person.

Reading is not understanding... if that were true, most lawyers, financial consultants and accountants would be out of a job

Actually not - it's the first thing you see before you purchase the service. See the screen shot in my post above.

 

[StefanSC]

See in the clip below from around 1:30 what the exact FTC issue seems to be:

It seems to me that the fee is not mentioned in the one page where it actually should... the legally binding one...

 

[EricBowles]

I'm going to go ahead and post a warning for this discussion. This forum prohibits bashing any company. Substitute the word Nikon, Sony or Canon for Adobe in this discussion and it would have already been deleted.

Let's stop bashing the company if we are going to continue the discussion. If in doubt - substitute the name of a camera company in your post and think about how it would be regarded.

 

[Whiskeyman]

I do think the problem is that the stuff is burried in complex "legalese", small to read fonts and multiple linked documents, making it almost impossible to understand for the lay-person.

Reading is not understanding... if that were true, most lawyers, financial consultants and accountants would be out of a job

Some of it is, but a lot of complaints and problems are rooted in the lack of initial consumer attention to product and contract details, even when the pertinent details are written boldy up front.

Similarly to how some pedestrians will walk into traffic with the attitude that the car headed their way will stop because of the certainty of a lawsuit if they don't.

"Caveat emptor? Naaaah, I'll just sue them."

 

[PhotoLover]

The claim here is pretty simple - Adobe Creative Cloud has a one year term with monthly payments. They offer a trial, but not a month to month plan to be used when needed. The agreement you accept when you enroll in the plan is clear about the terms - but some don't read the agreement or think what is clearly spelled out does not apply.

Here is what they show for the Photography plan with minimal cloud storage. It's quite clear about the Annual term which can be paid monthly or up front - but it's a year.
View attachment 91507

The Adobe plan is quite a bargain. Purchased individually, Lightroom was $149 up front and $79 every two years or so for updates. There were a lot of people who did not buy the latest version, and the terms were pretty flexible. Photoshop was at an additional cost - $699 up front and a major update every couple of years with a fee to update. The products I have today for $9.99/mo. include a number of AI related features, much better editing capabilities, and support for a wide range of new cameras and lenses. In addition, there is a host of free training and support from Adobe as well as third party support and training because it does have a 70% market share or more. The cost of the Photography Plan has not changed since the initial introduction twelve years ago. Most competitors have gone to cloud models at higher prices.

It will be interesting to see what happens with this litigation. There are people at the FTC that do not like any big business.

I agree, it is a fantastic bargain.

 

[TurtleCat]

My biggest issue with the subscription model is the offloading problem. Initially with the Photoshop bundle you lost access to everything but then they allowed you to have a read only view with Lightroom. I would be on the Photoshop bundle now if they had a scheme (which some adopt) that if you have the subscription for x amount of time that you can offload with full features at the version you ended with and restarting at full price if you change your mind later.

I do find that one particular issue the FTC is highlighting is an issue with a number of subscription options: finding how and where to cancel is obviously made difficult to locate. The persistent can find it, though. Just like when Adobe was hiding the link to the CS6 downloads for those with perpetual licenses. If you were persistent and a bit lucky you could find it but they did hide it.

I think if they introduced that model, say you subscribe for 3 years and then whenever you leave you take the last version you had access to with you, then I’d rejoin without a problem.

 

[ajrmd]

I walked away from Lightroom years ago. I didn't like their "ethics" or business model. I use ON1 now and I'm happy with that. Adobe can do what they like, they will never get a penny of my money

2024.5 is significantly improved in many respects. It is more stable, handles larger folders better, the AI masking is better, and it is faster. I can't say whether the sky replacement has improved and the perfect eraser and context aware fill leave a lot to be desired.

 

[bleirer]

My biggest issue with the subscription model is the offloading problem. Initially with the Photoshop bundle you lost access to everything but then they allowed you to have a read only view with Lightroom. I would be on the Photoshop bundle now if they had a scheme (which some adopt) that if you have the subscription for x amount of time that you can offload with full features at the version you ended with and restarting at full price if you change your mind later.

I do find that one particular issue the FTC is highlighting is an issue with a number of subscription options: finding how and where to cancel is obviously made difficult to locate. The persistent can find it, though. Just like when Adobe was hiding the link to the CS6 downloads for those with perpetual licenses. If you were persistent and a bit lucky you could find it but they did hide it.

I think if they introduced that model, say you subscribe for 3 years and then whenever you leave you take the last version you had access to with you, then I’d rejoin without a problem.

They already have that, for classic anyway:

You can continue to access all your photos on your local hard drive through Lightroom for the desktop. You can continue to import and organize photos and output your edited photos through Export, Publish, Print, Web, or Slideshow. Access to the Develop & Map modules and Lightroom for mobile is not available after your membership ends.

 

[Doug]

I am not sure about likes or dislikes. Like all civil servants, they do what they get paid to do, which in any enforcement capacity, by nature, is adversarial. Ultimately, those responsible are the Board of Directors and the Company Officers. In the end all of them are renumerated based on financial results. Ethics don't seem to play much of a role. Customers always pay the price. What is happening at Boeing today, is a great example...

 

[Anjin San]

I don't get the "hidden" fees. The fees/penalties are all explained when you sign up. Problem is no one bothers to read that stuff. Government is again just trying to absolve people of personal accountability. Most of the streaming services do the same things alleged in the lawsuit. They're just going after the deep pockets.

I'm with you…the existence of and some details on late fees appear to be disclosed at the signup screen. They may be guilty of making it hard to cancel…dunno, never tried to cancel. I'm suspicious of the reasons behind this lawsuit myself.

 

[Woody Meristem]

Companies almost always disclose all the terms of a service (the ones that don't are usually shysters) but most of the terms, especially cancellation, are in such legalese that the majority of users can't understand what they're agreeing to, or things are buried so deeply in the terms that they're virtually unfindable, or people just don't bother to read the terms because they want the service. Companies count on that to do what is most profitable for them -- don't forget that the service they offer is just a means to their end -- profits.

 

[EricBowles]

I'm with you…the existence of and some details on late fees appear to be disclosed at the signup screen. They may be guilty of making it hard to cancel…dunno, never tried to cancel. I'm suspicious of the reasons behind this lawsuit myself.

The cancellation cost is also spelled out - 50% of the annual contract.

 

[Alistair]

The problem is that the contract renews automatically and they charge your card before you know it.

 

[PhD69]

"and think it will change Adobe's culture"... just have a look at Adobe financial results the year after they switched to subscription process and you'll clearly understand where you stand.
If you're not happy with Adobe behaviour... switch to another solution. It’ll keep you from getting an ulcer.

 

[TurtleCat]

They already have that, for classic anyway:

You can continue to access all your photos on your local hard drive through Lightroom for the desktop. You can continue to import and organize photos and output your edited photos through Export, Publish, Print, Web, or Slideshow. Access to the Develop & Map modules and Lightroom for mobile is not available after your membership ends.

That’s basically what I said they have now. What I was saying is a full capability with nothing (except perhaps cloud services) disabled after you end subscription after a period of time. That’s quite different from what they do today.

 

[bleirer]

Sounds like you'd like it to be free, can I drive the rental car after the rental agreement expires, or I'm probably missing your point.