←back to thread

Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

(petapixel.com)
553 points bookofjoe | 1 comments | 11 Apr 25 14:01 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
55555 ◴[12 Apr 25 03:33 UTC] 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 ◴[12 Apr 25 07:29 UTC] 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 ◴[12 Apr 25 08:51 UTC] No.43662620[source]▶
That's why you always use throwaway cards for this.
replies(3): >>43662646 #>>43663301 #>>43664741 #
reisse ◴[12 Apr 25 10:57 UTC] 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 #
connicpu ◴[12 Apr 25 13:15 UTC] No.43664105[source]▶
Reverse class action isn't a thing, there's no way to sue thousands of people all at once, so they'd have to bring their suit against every individual who did it. Costs would be guaranteed to be much higher than any possible recovery.
replies(1): >>43664614 #
baby_souffle ◴[12 Apr 25 14:19 UTC] No.43664614[source]▶
Why would they sue? Just send it to collections and let them sort it out?
replies(2): >>43664762 #>>43666221 #
jrockway ◴[12 Apr 25 17:11 UTC] No.43666221[source]▶
Collections rarely does anything. I mean they will nag you, but you ask them to only contact you in writing, and it basically goes away. The collection agency could sue you, but it's rare. It involves putting together a realistic case (we are sure this person signed this contract and owes us $X) and that is expensive.

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.

replies(1): >>43666491 #
nrb ◴[12 Apr 25 17:46 UTC] No.43666491[source]▶
In the US, a collection on your credit report can tank your FICO score by more than 100 points, affecting your ability to borrow at the best rate, rent a home, or get certain jobs. This would be a very risky move if the purchase was made in such a way that you are personally liable.
replies(4): >>43667930 #>>43668193 #>>43668758 #>>43683038 #
1. h2zizzle ◴[12 Apr 25 21:50 UTC] No.43668193{3}[source]▶
Depending on who you're talking to, none of those are realistic prospects anyway. Your borrowing rate will be crap, no matter what, because of your age/credit history/place of residence/skin color (and, if you really need funding, you turn to the BNPL shadow lenders or GFM); you will never earn enough to rent an entire home, or an apartment with a corporate landlord; none of those jobs will ever even look at your resume.

We are reaching a critical mass of people who have no buy-in to these structures because they've been previously cut out.