91–100 of 603 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see the total amount here https://imgur.com/uUqd9ZY
No, the total amount (your contractual obligation) in your screenshot would be $635.88 + taxes.
If you click the options you can see the prices. This is a common practice, I feel like there are people are really trying to make this a bigger deal than it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean they could send it to collections. I’m not saying it’s likely they would, but I’ve had it happen to me before in a similar situation with a different company‘s subscription that tried to charge me a cancellation fee I didn’t originally agree to. As I found out the hard way, there’s not a lot you can do to fight that. They use your credit score as a threat.
If that happens, you lawyer up, write a blog post, and make some money on adwords.
If you can afford Adobe subscription, just cancel it and pay the cancellation fee. Or run it into the end of the period. The costs are minimal. Definitely smaller than the costs of a collection.
Ha, this happened to me and I circumvented this by switching my plan to a new plan which kicked off some trial grace period, at which point I cancelled my entire plan. No cancellation fee. Me 1: Adobe 0
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me this is a very intuitive presentation of pricing, so not sure what you are referring to as a dark pattern. There are three clearly laid-out options: 1. No contract, pay monthly 2. Annual contract, pay monthly (cheaper than 1) 3. Annual contract, pay in one go (cheaper than 1 & 2) You pick one of the three options and check out. Where exactly is the confusion?
That's exactly the dark pattern is - the convoluted pricing and terms. Also, not everybody is a uckin lawyer, that's another problem. The customer has already been paying more than they'd have paid if they went for a long duration contract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is disingenuous at best, and fraudulent at worst - and I know ACCC in Australia will take a very dim view. Take the main page for instance, the one you linked - it lists monthly prices. No mention whatsoever of "annual pricing paid monthly" - it's JUST monthly mentioned. Pic: https://imgur.com/sZPfFDI When you click "See plans and pricing details" it gives you the Annual monthly and ACTUAL monthly prices. Pic: h…
To me this is a very intuitive presentation of pricing, so not sure what you are referring to as a dark pattern. There are three clearly laid-out options: 1. No contract, pay monthly 2. Annual contract, pay monthly (cheaper than 1) 3. Annual contract, pay in one go (cheaper than 1 & 2) You pick one of the three options and check out. Where exactly is the confusion?
If they want to honestly advertise that price then it needs to say “billed monthly with annual contract.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is disingenuous at best, and fraudulent at worst - and I know ACCC in Australia will take a very dim view. Take the main page for instance, the one you linked - it lists monthly prices. No mention whatsoever of "annual pricing paid monthly" - it's JUST monthly mentioned. Pic: https://imgur.com/sZPfFDI When you click "See plans and pricing details" it gives you the Annual monthly and ACTUAL monthly prices. Pic: h…
When you click the "buy" button it's made clear https://imgur.com/uUqd9ZY Reminds me of car advertising. They don't show the full price of the lease. They show the monthly payments
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like even the original post isn't suggesting that what they are doing is illegal, just scummy. I think it straddles the line of false advertising since it is pretty clear by looking at the market of subscriptions that there is a decent premium for a monthly vs. a yearly subscription. As a point of reference, World of Warcraft offers about a 10% discount for their 6 month subscription plan compared to the mon…
I don't understand what's scummy about this. Every service out there offers discounted prices for longer-term contracts since they are guaranteed a sustained future income. If they didn't have a penalty for breaking the contract then everyone would just game the system. What should they do instead? Not have the annual payment option and screw over all the people who do want to pay for the entire year and are happy wi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Justified or not, I personally take a dim view of cancellation fees in general. Evidently i'm not alone either.
I'd say especially when it's not costing Adobe anything to cancel your subscription, it's just a money grab. There are some exceptions where a fee is ok like when it's actually putting the business out financially, like Garmin & Iridium satellite service agreements, Garmin has little choice...but clearly not the case for Adobe
This seems pretty fair to me, when you signed up for the contract, those purchases figure into their operations.
Reverse the paradigm, if they cancelled providing you these services, would you expect a refund, or would it be a money grab to expect to get your money back when they violated the terms of the agreement?
This is why you ALWAYS use a Privacy.com (or similar) virtual credit card with limited access to your bank account. It's the same as creating a separation between your API layer and DB layer. They shouldn't have unmitigated access. Anytime I start a trial, or pay for a service provider with a high likelihood of screwing me over—Privacy.com virtual card.
I was hit with this last year while struggling for funds. Upon seeing the cancellation fee, I simply reported my credit card lost, changed the contact details on my adobe account, and then just left the account to rot. Adobe will never see another dime from me.
How does this work legally? I see this sort of comment quite often, but in my jurisdiction the money I owe is bound by the terms of the contract, not by the ability of the company to debit my card. If I would do this, companies can and will send letters with the amount due and eventually may escalate to authorities or a bailiff.
