←back to thread

553 points bookofjoe | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
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(18): >>43661156 #>>43661248 #>>43661256 #>>43661324 #>>43662187 #>>43662338 #>>43662375 #>>43662399 #>>43663387 #>>43664265 #>>43664914 #>>43666795 #>>43667004 #>>43667057 #>>43667496 #>>43667852 #>>43667988 #>>43668119 #
sanswork ◴[] No.43661256[source]
I just went back through the sign up process to check and it seems pretty obvious these days? I got three options at checkout annual billed monthly, monthly, annual.

I hate annual billed monthly but the wording isn't hidden.

replies(3): >>43662262 #>>43662459 #>>43662460 #
InsideOutSanta ◴[] No.43662262[source]
I think it's still not great. The annual/monthly plan says:

>Annual, billed monthly

>US$22.99/mo

>Fee applies if you cancel after 14 days

There's a popup you can open with more information, but that just says:

>If you cancel after 14 days, your service will continue until the end of that month's billing period, and you will be charged an early termination fee.

It doesn't tell you anywhere what that fee is, and I can't find any link to a page with more information.

replies(2): >>43662904 #>>43663399 #
liendolucas ◴[] No.43662904[source]
Fee application for cancelling a subscription service should be absolutely illegal.
replies(1): >>43663391 #
maccard ◴[] No.43663391[source]
It’s a fee for cancelling an annual subscription that you agreed to.
replies(2): >>43663582 #>>43667234 #
liendolucas ◴[] No.43663582[source]
That's exactly why it should be illegal: so people don't have to agree to an abusive and money thirsty contract.
replies(2): >>43663699 #>>43664365 #
1. maccard ◴[] No.43663699[source]
They have the option right next to that for a monthly only option.
replies(1): >>43663886 #
2. maccard ◴[] No.43663945[source]
Nope.

I just think it’s insane to attack a company for something they’re not doing, with the implication they are still doing it.

replies(1): >>43664111 #
3. buttercraft ◴[] No.43664111{3}[source]
The implication is they can't be trusted
replies(1): >>43664698 #
4. maccard ◴[] No.43664698{4}[source]
Honestly, that should be your default stance with any agreement with a company.
replies(1): >>43665697 #
5. buttercraft ◴[] No.43665697{5}[source]
Okay, but you can also take the company's well-deserved reputation into account when deciding whether to do business with them.