Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    554 points bookofjoe | 11 comments | | HN request time: 0.007s | source | bottom
    Show context
    55555 ◴[] No.43661106[source]
    Adobe runs what must be one of the largest deceptive rebills. The vast majority of users signing up for a monthly plan do not realize that it is 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 honestly don't know how they haven't faced FTC action for this, as it's been their primary model for 5-10 years now.
    replies(19): >>43661156 #>>43661248 #>>43661256 #>>43661324 #>>43662187 #>>43662338 #>>43662375 #>>43662399 #>>43663387 #>>43664265 #>>43664914 #>>43666795 #>>43667004 #>>43667057 #>>43667496 #>>43667852 #>>43667988 #>>43668119 #>>43740962 #
    1. sepositus ◴[] No.43661156[source]
    Wasn't there some action around this like a year ago? Can't find it now, but I thought it was investigated at some point.
    replies(2): >>43661257 #>>43661837 #
    2. 55555 ◴[] No.43661257[source]
    It seems you're right. I can't find how big the fine was. ChatGPT says it is still ongoing. Not sure if that's right. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/06/...
    replies(1): >>43661393 #
    3. _Algernon_ ◴[] No.43661393[source]
    We all have access to chatgpt. If we want hallucination ridden bullshit, we'll find it ourselves.
    replies(5): >>43661472 #>>43661626 #>>43661879 #>>43661888 #>>43661919 #
    4. elaus ◴[] No.43661472{3}[source]
    It doesn't seem to me like the linked page contains "hallucination ridden bullshit".
    5. bdelmas ◴[] No.43661626{3}[source]
    Yes. AI becoming the first place people go for information and replacing facts and first degree of source is going to be a scary world.
    6. simonklitj ◴[] No.43661837[source]
    Yeah, you can change plans (at no cost), then cancel right after the change. You get 14 days of free cancellation, which resets on plan change.
    replies(1): >>43662391 #
    7. ◴[] No.43661879{3}[source]
    8. caseyy ◴[] No.43661888{3}[source]
    I agree with you about ChatGPT "facts", but the parent commenter shared valuable information with a source. No need to treat them in such a rude way.
    replies(1): >>43662164 #
    9. kergonath ◴[] No.43662164{4}[source]
    The ChatGPT bit brings nothing. Just the source would be enough. Nobody feels the need to justify anything by saying "looked it up on Google". What matters is the actual source, and ChatGPT isn’t one.
    10. hapidjus ◴[] No.43662391[source]
    Did exactly this, got hit with the cacellation fee a couple of days later.
    replies(1): >>43664616 #
    11. simonklitj ◴[] No.43664616{3}[source]
    Really? Worked for me in February. In that case, this workaround might’ve been patched.