←back to thread

553 points bookofjoe | 3 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 #
devsda ◴[] No.43662187[source]
> 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 don't know if this is a recent policy change, but it is not the complete amount but only 50% of the remaining annual amount as per their website[1].

If it were something involving physical goods or services I can understand, but 50% penalty is still a crazy amount for a hosted software service.

1. https://www.adobe.com/legal/subscription-terms.html

replies(1): >>43662620 #
r33b33 ◴[] No.43662620[source]
That's why you always use throwaway cards for this.
replies(3): >>43662646 #>>43663301 #>>43664741 #
reisse ◴[] No.43663301[source]
Of course it's highly unlikely they'll go in court for a single user, but if everyone starts doing this, they'll sue. It doesn't matter the payment failed, you still legally owe Adobe (or any other service) money.
replies(6): >>43663314 #>>43663619 #>>43664105 #>>43668372 #>>43670485 #>>43672573 #
croes ◴[] No.43663314[source]
They could lose because of unfair business practices.
replies(2): >>43663489 #>>43664257 #
gruez ◴[] No.43664257[source]
Is it? It clearly says "Annual, billed monthly" and "Fee applies if you cancel after 14 days." next to the price.
replies(3): >>43664788 #>>43665044 #>>43668132 #
1. croes ◴[] No.43665044{3}[source]
They could write they get the blood of your first born.

Just because it’s written doesn’t make it legal

Ask the FTC what they think or at least thought before Trump

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40707558

replies(1): >>43665355 #
2. gruez ◴[] No.43665355[source]
>They could write they get the blood of your first born.

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.

replies(1): >>43665450 #
3. croes ◴[] No.43665450[source]
That’s why I wrote they could lose not they would lose.