It goes month to month after 12 months, it doesn't stop, but I grant you sure they could make their own deals sound less appealing, but without a law forcing them too, they aren't going to.
This right below the button you press to start your subscription.
By clicking "Agree and subscribe," you agree: You will be charged US$52.99 (plus tax) monthly and at the end of your one-year term, your subscription will automatically renew monthly until you cancel (price subject to change). No annual commitment required after the first year. Cancel anytime via Adobe Account or Customer Support. Cancel before Apr 26, 2021 to get a full refund and avoid a fee. You also agree to the Terms of Use and the Subscription and Cancellation Terms.
I mean, at some point, you are responsible for the financial transaction you make, this person that is playing the victim in this case had several chances to see what they were purchasing. They wanted a lower price, and signed up for it, they are acting like they are a victim of some trickery.
They made a mistake, adobe honored the subscription, and they should too, take it as a life lesson to pay more attention before obligating themselves.
People need to learn to treat transactions and contracts as a hostile situation and they can easily do themselves great harm by blindly ignoring the terms of a deal and some how thing it will be to their benefit.
This could be a country specific thing but Adobe’s Australian site does not say that at all, quite the opposite. It doesn’t even state the monthly price in the terms, just refers to them.
> “ Your subscription will automatically renew annually without notice until you cancel. You authorize us to store your payment method(s) and to automatically charge your payment method(s) every month until you cancel. We will automatically charge you the then-current rate for your plan, plus applicable taxes (such as VAT or GST if the rate does not include it), every month of your annual contract until you cancel.”
Adobe will renew it for another year at whatever rate they choose without notice.
I agree people should be more responsible in general with contracts, but it should be standardised. Australia’s design for the critical information sheet is great, it clearly shows what your paying, for how long, and for what. It’s got a similar design across companies too.
I believe with any contract that involves money over time, the total amount (including any fees) should be clear. I don’t think Adobe has made them clear.
I do note that the contract terms differ country to country so this might be more/less applicable to some. The part you quoted seems more reasonable.
> This could be a country specific thing but Adobe’s Australian site does not say that at all, quite the opposite.
Nope, perfectly normal business practice and not even unethical.
Please learn and understand how contracts work. They are a legal _obligation_ and you cannot just unilaterally change the conditions after signing a contract without provoking a contract penalty.
It’s really just how contracts work, everywhere in the world.
Contracts that involve money over time should state the exact amount you are obligated to pay in total, including any and all fees. Adobe does not currently do that. In Australia at least, they can renew your annual contract at a higher rate without notice. That's not OK with me.
The fact that you defend this practice shows where our ethics differ. I do not know how you can justify: A company signing you up for another year at a higher rate without telling you.
> Contracts that involve money over time should state the exact amount you are obligated to pay in total, including any and all fees. Adobe does not currently do that. In Australia at least, they can renew your annual contract at a higher rate without notice. That's not OK with me.
It was shown in screenshots in the Twitter thread that Adobe _actually_ does that.
> The fact that you defend this practice shows where our ethics differ. I do not know how you can justify: A company signing you up for another year at a higher rate without telling you.
So, you think it's justified to punish Adobe for the negligence of the customer?
Both Adobe _and_ the customer have the duty to study a mutual contract before signing it. Not reading what you are signing can also backfire for companies:
Not OP, and I agree that they should include the total payment expected but at this point the goalposts have moved from "adobe charges subscription cancellation fee" to "adobe doesn't show the difference between monthly and annual" to " adobe only shows the difference on the actual payment page" to" adobe doesn't display the annual total on the payment page".
Im no adobe apologist, but this entire thread is a witch hunt.
"adobe charges subscription cancellation fee" —
Adobe do not tell you how much the fee is ahead of time. In the conditions of the Australian purchasing page, the monthly price isn't even written in them. They can also renew it for another year while increasing the price without telling you.
"adobe doesn't show the difference between monthly and annual", and "adobe doesn't display the annual total on the payment page" —
They don't show you total price that you are committing to, they don't show you minimum amount to you must pay if you cancel.
All of this could be solved by saying "You are agreeing to pay a total of $923.88 over 12 months at $76.99 per-month. If you cancel, the minimum cost to you is $461.94 (50% of the total Annual plan), this decreases evenly each month.
> All of this could be solved by saying "You are agreeing to pay a total of $923.88 over 12 months at $76.99 per-month. If you cancel, the minimum cost to you is $461.94 (50% of the total Annual plan), this decreases evenly each month.
And presumably this must be on primary pricing page, not below the fold, have different options for with and without vat, and they must display this for the up-front annual sub, pay-monthly annual sub, and monthly sub with no commitment? The monthly sub needs to be clear that you're actually not signing up for 12 months, because you may only want/need it for 6 months rather than 12, so the other options need a monthly equivalent breakdown for comparison? FWIW, I did a super quick inline edit of Adobe's HTML to show what that looks like [0].
Also, the $461.94 is actually the _maximum_ cost, not the minimum.
> Adobe do not tell you how much the fee is ahead of time.
Yes, they do. [1] clearly says " If you cancel within 14 days of your initial order, you’ll be fully refunded. Should you cancel after 14 days, you’ll be charged a lump sum amount of 50% of your remaining contract obligation and your service will continue until the end of that month’s billing period.". There is so much detail in that page, it would be impossible to put all of that on the purchase page without being accused of burying it in the fine print.
> They can also renew it for another year while increasing the price without telling
This is exactly what I'm talking about - you're moving the goalposts here. We're talking about adobe's cancellation fees, not their renewal policy. I'm not defending their renewal policy, it's awful, but it's off topic.
> They don't show you total price that you are committing to, they don't show you minimum amount to you must pay if you cancel.
You're right, they should show it. They _do_ have it linked at [2]/[3] where they clearly show the annual cost, and the option to pay it monthly.
> they don't show you minimum amount to you must pay if you cancel.
Lets assume they _did_ show that amount. Reading this thread, are you telling me that people wouldn't find another axe to grind? e.g. "They don't make it clear that they can autorenew at a higher price". So now they need to add _every_ detail to the purchasing pages, where they're now accused of burying it in the fine print. But the reason they don't is because the amount is "50% of your remaining obligation", which is a minimum of 1/24th of the annual sum, which is misleading to display. What they _do_ do is clearly show you how much they'll charge you to cancel before you actually do so.
> And presumably this must be on primary pricing page, not below the fold
It just has to be before you commit to the contract.
> Yes, they do. [1] clearly says
No, that page shows no prices whatsoever. Your minimum commitments should be shown before you agree to the contract.
People keep making it out like it's some huge imposition on companies to tell customer how much money they'll pay. Here's an example of a more complicated flow from an Australian phone carrier Telstra, purchasing a phone over 24 months: https://imgur.com/a/XycFkyP — it's possible, Adobe are lazy and this is a dark pattern.
> It just has to be before you commit to the contract.
But then the other half [0] of this thread that claim putting the dropdown on the second page isn't enough.
> No, that page shows no prices whatsoever.
It states you can cancel and will be charged 50% of the remaining balance. That number depends on when you cancel, so it's not possible to give an actual figure to it. Could that flow be improved? Sure, you could have a page per product, but I do'nt think it's deceitful to have a clear link to the cancellation terms of the contract from both the marketing page _and_ the purchase page.
> Your minimum commitments should be shown before you agree to the contract.
One click on the purchase page shows this [1] which shows three options, one for prepaid, one for annual for paid monthly, and one for monthly. How much clearer do you want it?
> Here's an example of a more complicated flow from an Australian phone carrier Telstra,
That flow is almost identical to Adobe's - it doesn't show you the actual cost to the customer, it shows you the cost of the device, and separately the cost of the subscription. On the cancellation terms page, it also tells you you will be due "the full amount" - not what the amount is. (Unrelated, that's a nice recording).
This stuff is _hard_, yes adobe could do better, but at a certain point, you have to accept that the user understands the terms of what they're agreeing to. An "Annual Plan, paid monthly" couldn't really be any clearer.
They could be clear and upfront with it, but aren’t... can’t imagine why.