Adobe Inc., the powerhouse behind popular software like Photoshop and Illustrator, is being sued by the U.S. government, following a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) referral, for allegedly misleading consumers and trapping them in unwanted subscriptions through deceptive practices.
The crux of the U.S. complaint centers on Adobe’s “annual, paid monthly” (APM) subscription plan, which is available for a range of Adobe products, including Photoshop, Premiere Pro, Acrobat Pro, InDesign, and Lightroom.
According to the complaint, Adobe fails to adequately inform consumers about the hefty early termination fee (ETF) associated with this plan.
“During enrollment, Adobe hides material terms of its APM plan in fine print and behind optional textboxes and hyperlinks, providing disclosures that are designed to go unnoticed and that most consumers never see,” the U.S. stated in its complaint.
This alleged obfuscation is said to violate several consumer-protection laws.
The complaint further alleges that Adobe complicates the cancellation process, effectively “ambushing” users with unexpected ETFs when they attempt to terminate their subscriptions.
This onerous process, as described by the U.S., makes it challenging for consumers to exit their agreements without incurring additional costs.
To illustrate the issue, the U.S. complaint provides a detailed walkthrough of the purchase flow for Adobe’s services.
For instance, when prospective customers click on “See plan and pricing details” for Photoshop, they are presented with several subscription options, including the contentious APM plan.
However, critical information about the ETF is only accessible by hovering over an inconspicuous “i” icon.
Insufficient Disclosure
The U.S. government contends that even when consumers do find the ETF information, it remains insufficient.
The details, buried in a gray box, state: “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.”
The U.S. argues that this disclosure does not clearly communicate that the APM plan entails a one-year commitment.
“The plan selection page does not state anywhere that the APM plan requires a one-year commitment,” the complaint emphasized, highlighting the alleged deceptive nature of Adobe’s subscription model.
The U.S. is not only seeking monetary damages for affected consumers but also demands that Adobe cease these allegedly deceptive practices.
The legal action aims to protect future customers from similar experiences and ensure transparency in Adobe’s subscription offerings.
Adobe’s Response
In response to the allegations, Adobe directed inquiries to a statement from Dana Rao, the company’s general counsel and chief trust officer, posted in their newsroom.
Rao defended the company’s practices, stating, “Subscription services are convenient, flexible and cost-effective to allow users to choose the plan that best fits their needs, timeline and budget. Our priority is to always ensure our customers have a positive experience. We are transparent with the terms and conditions of our subscription agreements and have a simple cancellation process. We will refute the FTC’s claims in court.”
As the case unfolds, the spotlight will be on how Adobe’s subscription practices withstand legal scrutiny and whether changes will be mandated to protect consumers.
The outcome could have significant implications for subscription-based business models across various industries.
Have you ever experienced this huddle of canceling subscribtion at Adobe? Share your experience in the comment.