Adobe allegedly makes it difficult for customers to cancel subscriptions
Company reportedly hides early termination fees that can reach hundreds of dollars
FTC and DOJ sue Adobe for hidden subscription cancellation fees and deceptive practices
FTC claims Adobe does not adequately disclose these fees when customers try to cancel in their first year
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Department of Justice have filed lawsuits against Adobe for allegedly making it difficult for customers to cancel their subscriptions and hiding early termination fees.
According to the FTC, Adobe does not adequately disclose these fees, which can reach hundreds of dollars, when customers try to cancel in their first year. The company also reportedly forces those who want to cancel online to navigate numerous pages and makes the process more challenging for those canceling by phone.
The FTC's Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Samuel Levine, stated that Adobe
Adobe does not adequately disclose the early termination fees, which are calculated as 50% of the remaining payments when customers cancel in their first year.
Those fees can reach hundreds of dollars.
Customers who want to cancel online are forced to navigate numerous pages, while those canceling by phone encounter resistance and delay from representatives.
Adobe is facing a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission for allegedly making it difficult for customers to cancel their subscriptions and imposing hidden fees for early cancellations.
The lawsuit claims that Adobe protects its subscription revenues by thwarting subscribers’ attempts to cancel, subjecting them to a convoluted and inefficient cancellation process filled with unnecessary steps, delays, unsolicited offers, and warnings.
Adobe customers trying to cancel online had to navigate numerous pages with multiple options, much of which is wholly unnecessary to honor consumers’ cancellation requests.
The lawsuit cites examples of subscribers who were unable to cancel their subscriptions through Adobe’s website and those who faced a time-consuming and burdensome process when contacting the company via phone or chat.
Adobe was aware of the complaints and knew consumers were often confused about subscription terms, but allegedly continued its violative practices.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(35%)
The article contains selective reporting and emotional manipulation. The author quotes the U.S. Department of Justice's claims about Adobe's subscription practices without providing any context or counterargument from Adobe, creating a biased narrative that manipulates the reader's emotions against Adobe. Additionally, the author only reports details that support their position, such as the hidden fees and difficult cancellation process, while omitting important information like Adobe's explanation of their subscription plans being 'convenient, flexible and cost effective'.
Adobe allegedly protects its subscription revenues by thwarting subscribers' attempts to cancel.
Welcome to Adobe, you can subscribe any time you like, but you can never leave.
For years, Adobe has profited from this hidden fee, misleading consumers about the true costs of a subscription and ambushing them with the fee when they try to cancel.
Fallacies
(5%)
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating 'Welcome to Adobe, you can subscribe any time you like, but you can never leave.' and 'Adobe allegedly protects its subscription revenues by thwarting subscribers attempts to cancel.' These statements are not based on facts and are an exaggeration. The author also uses appeals to authority by quoting the U.S. Department of Justice's claims without providing any evidence or context for why these claims should be trusted.
]Adobe allegedly protects its subscription revenues by thwarting subscribers attempts to cancel[
Welcome to Adobe, you can subscribe any time you like, but you can never leave.
Bias
(15%)
The author uses language that depicts Adobe's practices as deceptive and burdensome for the consumers. He also quotes the U.S. Department of Justice stating that Adobe 'thwarted subscribers attempts to cancel' and 'wielding the fee as a powerful retention tool'. These examples demonstrate bias against Adobe.
Adobe allegedly protects its subscription revenues by thwarting subscribers attempts to cancel, subjecting them to a convoluted and inefficient cancellation process filled with unnecessary steps, delays, unsolicited offers and warnings.
For years, Adobe has profited from this hidden fee, misleading consumers about the true costs of a subscription and ambushing them with the fee when they try to cancel.
Adobe is accused of harming consumers by enrolling them in lucrative subscription plans without clear disclosures
Important terms such as hefty early termination fees are hidden in fine print and behind textboxes and hyperlinks
The government claims Adobe makes canceling an onerous and complicated process
Accuracy
The US government sued Adobe on Monday, November 30, 2023
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an example of a hidden premise fallacy. Adobe is accused of not clearly disclosing important terms such as hefty early termination fees to customers when they sign up for annual, paid monthly subscription plans. The government claims that Adobe hides these important terms in fine print and behind textboxes and hyperlinks, only clearly disclosing the fees when subscribers try to cancel, and making canceling an onerous and complicated process.
The government said Adobe failed to adequately disclose hefty early termination fees, sometimes reaching hundreds of dollars, when customers sign up for "annual, paid monthly" subscription plans.
Adobe hid details of an expensive cancellation fee from consumers 'in fine print and behind optional text boxes and hyperlinks'.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Accuracy
The Justice Department sued Adobe on Monday over claims that the company made it difficult to cancel subscriptions to Photoshop and other software.
Adobe faces antitrust lawsuits from the Justice Department and FTC, along with other tech companies such as Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft and Meta.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(95%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it states 'U.S. regulators sued Adobe on Monday over claims that the company made it difficult to cancel subscriptions to Photoshop and other software.' This statement implies that the claims are true because they were made by U.S. regulators, but no evidence is provided in the article to support these claims beyond this statement.
U.S. regulators sued Adobe on Monday over claims that the company made it difficult to cancel subscriptions to Photoshop and other software.
Adobe encouraged consumers to enroll in its annual, paid monthly plan without disclosing the cost to cancel
Users who try to cancel are met with unfair roadblocks and continue to be charged
The FTC alleges that Adobe’s practices violate the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act by failing to disclose cancellation fees prominently enough at signup, not getting informed consent from customers about those fees, and not offering a simple cancellation process
Accuracy
Adobe does not adequately disclose the early termination fees for its services
Deception
(30%)
The article by Khristopher J. Brooks contains deception through selective reporting and emotional manipulation. The author focuses on the negative aspects of Adobe's subscription practices without mentioning the benefits or alternatives, creating a biased perspective for readers. Additionally, the author uses phrases like 'deceives customers,' 'unfair roadblocks,' and 'trapped customers' to elicit an emotional response from readers. The article also fails to disclose that Adobe offers a simple cancellation process and that users can easily find information about the cancellation fee on their website.
Adobe trapped customers into year-long subscriptions through hidden early termination fees and numerous cancellation hurdles...
The U.S. government is suing Adobe, accusing the software maker of deceiving customers by hiding the early termination fee for its services...
Users who do try to cancel are met unfair roadblocks...
Fallacies
(85%)
The author uses an appeal to authority fallacy by quoting the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stating that Adobe deceives customers and hides early termination fees. However, the author does not provide any analysis or evidence of their own to support this claim.
]The U.S. government is suing Adobe, accusing the software maker of steering customers toward a pricey subscription plan while concealing how much it costs to cancel the service.[
