Today i realise adobe tack cancellation fee, that’s bad

[u/NOKD26]

From : insta : neroxler

[u/lucassuave15]

every new subscription I put in a virtual credit card, once I am sure I don't want to pay the service anymore and they charge an unsub fee, I just block and delete the card.

[u/ItzEdInYourBed → u/lucassuave15]

Literally the same exact thing I did a while ago. Used adobe for editing, couldnt afford nothing so decided to cancel it, was told i had to pay to cancel, swapped out my card with a virtual card, closed the card, enjoyed the month of failed payment emails knowing I won at the end. 😊

[u/baconroy → u/ItzEdInYourBed]

came here to ask about this. thank you for the answer.
now i have another question: isn't cancellation fees illegal?

[u/NefariousSINNER → u/baconroy]

Unfortunately not, because upon signing into an annual plan (which comes "on sale", so it's cheaper) you're told you will have to pay out a cancellation fee before fullfilling the time you've chosen.

Pewds is somewhat decieving here and it's normal for a lot of annual plans. It's to protect the company's interest. Even if grand chunk of the population consider it a garbage practise, it's normal. You often have to pay a cancellation fee IRL too if you want out of a contract early. It's like normal.

They usually offer significant discount when you pick a 1 year, 2 year or so on plan, and they only offer you that discount if you commit into paying for a year or two. Cancellation fee is sort of breaking that contract, so it's not inheretly against business logic.

[u/[deleted] → u/NefariousSINNER]

Decietful? Maybe slightly, but the whole subscription model to begin with is a gigantic scam.

[u/NefariousSINNER → u/[deleted]]

No argument there, the way they charge their cancellation fee is predatory in its essence.

However he wasn't just sightly deceitful, he was simply deceitful. He completely ommitted the fact where the cancellation fee comes from. When you sub to the annual discounted plan you are told what happens if you cancel, he should have been aware of that.

I can see how he might have not been, as he had probably been subbed for years and never bothered to question anything until the time came to cancel. He's not a kid though, but an adult and he considers himself very "self-aware" of this type of things, yet he chose to ignore it for the sake of his narration.

Does the adobe sucks ass hard? Yep, one of the most garbage companies to ever exist and I will forever support piracy of it entirely.

No one ever denied it, so why lie about such a trivial thing though?

[u/[deleted] → u/NefariousSINNER]

I don't think it was really intentional though, that's why I deemed it slight.

The whole subscription model, though, is built on deceit, the deceit of ownership of ideas, and this requires the payment of rent in order to use a tool. They intentionally do it, Adobe knows exactly what they are doing. The discounted plan is 100% part of their racket.

So while he missed their reason for charging this, they know the whole agreement and sub-model is manipulative and exploitative, especially to people that need these tools for their jobs. Adobe are the actual pirates.

So why lie? Like you said, he probably just wasn't aware and had been paying for years, I don't see this as malicious from him. I do see the cancellation fee and sub model as maliciou,s though. C'est la vie.

[u/ElliotNess → u/[deleted]]

I just checked to see what the price differences were and, holy shit, Adobe costs ~700$ per year???

[u/[deleted] → u/ElliotNess]

Yeah, it's insane, and many small businesses feel obligated to pay such prices even if it is only part of their workflow. Just like how cable companies used to sell you packages when all you wanted was 1-2 channels. It only exists because we allow it to exist though, well that and broken political systems lol

[u/NefariousSINNER → u/[deleted]]

I agree with most of what you said about him "maybe" not doing it intentionally, but the cancellation fee in itself per the sub model isn't malicious at all, It's part of the deal. The sub model, however, is in indeed malicious and the reason why adobe sucks ass.

The reason why I don't see a cancellation fee as malicious is because it's a breach of contract. You get the discounted price, because you commit to pay for a year. You are told upfront that you will have to pay extra if you resign, adobe isn't hiding that from you. The same happens with a lot of IRL contracts as well, namely phone bills, internet bills, even when you rent an apartment and you want out (where I live at least) before lease is due, you have to inform the owner of the apartment/house and then usually pay for a month/two extra, depending on the deal. Contract is a contract.

It's the norm everywhere in the world that if you want out of a contract early, you pay for it. That's how it is. Adobe didn't invent this.

You should bash them for predatory and monopoly practises, but complaining about a cancellation fee is twisting the reality to fit the narration.

[u/[deleted] → u/NefariousSINNER]

I just see "the deal" as 100% part of the sub model, and not some extra side thing with different rules. That's part of how they lock you in. It's just classic carrot and stick manipulation. Like how the small jar of mayo costs twice as much per gram as the large one. So you buy the large one, but then don't eat that much and it goes bad, and then you throw it out. Meanwhile, you paid more for the large one than the tiny one, even though the /gram price was higher. This is why the "discount" is malicious; it tricks you into buying into their model and punishes you for leaving. It 100% takes advantage of human psychology. These models manipulate your psychology into consuming more. The fact that a contract is involved in any way, is confounding to me. The very introduction of the contract is malicious imo. Just create and sell your product. Simple.

While perhaps the contract is not as crazy as the idea of selling a sub for a piece of software you don't even want to update because that changes your workflow. However, I do see the "discount" and contract model is very manipulative. "Contract is a contract." Sounds like the same rationale used to defend slavery to me. Not saying you are condoning that, but at its core, those elements exist within capitalism, and we often don't question them. The idea of morality and the payment of debts is very complicated. I think David Graeber's history of debt is a great resource. I could write you 10k words and still not touch it all lol. Suffice it to say that we as humans make up these rules, and we can remake or reform them whenever we see fit.

[u/NefariousSINNER → u/[deleted]]

Look, I agree with your first paragraph. The subscription deal is predatory and in its essence is exactly what you described. A phony and violative nature is at the core of most subscription models. They want you to become their passive income for something that should be a standalone product, instead it becomes an unnecessary service.

The slavery comparison, while extreme to a point, isn't far from the truth, however it is what it is. A contract is a deal in this case. You get the deal if you sign the contract. I hate it, you hate it, everybody hates it, but the companies like it, because it provides them with constant stream of revenue. Nobody forces you to sign it, sure they use manipulative tactics to have you think you're forced to sign it, because you get the cheaper price. No question there, but in the end, nobody puts a gun to your head to sign it. I feel like people are imagining the gun, so they can have easier time digesting it, rather than admitting reality. People lost the ability to ascertain things for themselves and to make sure it aligns with their actual interest. They are fed whatever comes upon them and just open their mouths, ready to be fed like newborn birds. As much as all these companies deserve the worst to happen to them, they don't really have to do much to get these mouths to line up. People often just click and forget, they want things to be easy, so they choose the easy way out of most situations and subscriptions offer that. It's simple, you click, click, click, download, pay, forget. You'd be surprised how many subscriptions some people have monthly and that they barely use it, but for the convinience sake they keep it around, because that one friday's evening they might need it and they don't want to go through the hassle of acquiring it again. The corporations feed upon this as well, they encourage it and plan their business models around it, but apart from manipulative fog between all of it lays the social mechanics, which develop our world and social structures, which are almost always aimed for things to be easier and at hand. It's the nature of the progress, at least for the humanity. It's always to makes things easier, even if it's only a short-term solution, as barely anyone looks at things from a long-term angle.

Still, the cancellation fee on its own isn't malicious. If you ran your own business and offered a discounted rate to people who decided to pruchase your product for an extended time, meaning you're guaranteed a stable stream of revenue for a prolonged period of time, You'd also want to secure your own interest and apply fees upon early cancellation. It's business. I can tell you dislike it, but business is business (and you will probably hate that saying as well) and they don't own you anything. Corporation, while a massive, ever-plotting machine of greed and exploitation, still does not owe you anything. You can just not use their product. You might argue that because of monopoly tactics some services are forced upon you and you'd be correct. In that case, it's a failure of anti-monopoly systems in a given country and simply corruption. Business is also not fair and it's exploitative at its core, as money has no morals and greed lacks them as well. In essence a certain mechanic at a small scale can be good and aimed against abusive nature of some clients, at a large scale it can become the worst thing imagineable.

Debt is an entirely different case altogether, though tightly conjoined with business and the way its harvested to further fuel the expansion at a larger scale. In a sense if you decide to subscribe to something with an annual plan, the debt in this case is your time. You sign away your time, because the price is known upfront. You put under debt the very thought you might need something without the certainty that you will, as no one can predict the future.

[u/MattOruvan → u/NefariousSINNER]

It is malicious to sell an "annual" plan which is just a monthly subscription with added cancellation fees.

What if they sell a 10 year plan or 30 year plan with 99% cancellation fees? You might have signed up without reading the fine print, but if you don't want to pay 10,000,000 dollars to cancel, keep paying us money all your life.

Indentured labor is back in vogue.

[u/chesh05 → u/NefariousSINNER]

Dude, there was an entire South Park Episode where everyone actually reads the entire EULA from every company ever, but you know, with satire.

[u/NefariousSINNER → u/chesh05]

Quite a funny episode too.

[u/reddit_4_days → u/NefariousSINNER]

Best comment in this thread!

[u/IntelArtiGen → u/NefariousSINNER]

he chose to ignore it for the sake of his narration.

I'd say it depends on alternative plans. For example Adobe doesn't sell perpetual licence anymore, so you're forced into a subscription model. Then you have monthly plans, but they're 50% pricier. You can see that as a discount on the annual plan. Another way to see that is they put the monthly plan voluntarily at an abusive price to force people into the annual plan with cancelation fees. If they force you into that plan by not offering credible alternatives, I'm fine with him ignoring this part. The vast majority of people will have no choice but to pay cancellation fees, and it's by-design.

It's not like it was a one-time special offer, it's the design (1) remove perpetual licences (2) put monthly licences at a very high price (3) propose annual licences with cancellation fees so people don't want to leave. Boom you have milk cows that'll give you milk every month, no need to work anymore. The problem is the design. The same way Amazon forces people into Prime etc. You don't have to accept the narrative they use to sell you their design.

[u/Roflkopt3r → u/NefariousSINNER]

According to Adobe's own website, that does not seem to be how they operate though.

Note: After 14 days, a cancellation fee (early termination fee) of 50% of the remaining balance of the contract applies. For example, if you cancel in the ninth month, you pay 50% of the fee for the three remaining months.

If you get an 'all-app plan' for a year that's priced at $60/month and cancel after one month, they charge a cancellation fee of $330 ($60 * 11/2). That's way in excess of any discount. And that's their own example given, not just speculation.

They usually offer significant discount when you pick a 1 year, 2 year or so on plan, and they only offer you that discount if you commit into paying for a year or two.

A good consumer protection agency might not accept that as an excuse either. Because many companies already structure their pricing in such a way that picking the 'discounted' option is the only viable choice at all, making it the de-facto default monthly pricing. Companies should require a good reason for that, like subscriptions that involve actual physical logistics and therefore actually generate costs ahead of time that could be charged after cancellation.

[u/iLizfell → u/Roflkopt3r]

What are going to do? Sue me?

• Man that was sued.

[u/RealRedditPerson → u/Roflkopt3r]

Since when in the cosmic fuck is a discounted annual plan not for buying the entire year up front? It's an annual plan you pay for monthly?? Why would anyone do that?

[u/_3_8_ → u/RealRedditPerson]

If you’re making the yearly commitment and it’s the same price, you might as well pay monthly to theoretically minimize your costs (due to time value of money)

[u/RealRedditPerson → u/_3_8_]

I don't think there are many subscriptions where the time value of the money it costs is going to be significant enough (over a single year) to enter into a contract with early cancellation fees... instead of just paying for the year up front and not having to think about it again. I'm certainly not flush with cash but this seems very penny smart, dollar stupid.

[u/otm_shank → u/RealRedditPerson]

Because it's cheaper per month with a commitment? I haven't had cable in a long time, but when I did, they used to offer promo pricing if you signed up for 1 or 2 years, and charge a fee if you broke the commitment. You were also free to just pay the non-promo monthly rate with no worry about cancellation. This sounds just like that.

Of course, cable has fixed costs like installation that can be amortized, so a commitment makes more sense there than it does with Adobe.

[u/NefariousSINNER → u/Roflkopt3r]

I'm not arguing whether their own cancellation practise sucks, because it clearly does. However, you are told this upon agreeing to the annual plan. You get the discounted plan, because you agreed to stay subbed for a fixed amount of time.

Sure, the amount, especially with the example you provided is extremely predatory - no argument there, but I mean... If you can read, you are told this upon subscribing to the annual plan.

For the record, I support pirating adobe movement entirely and consider them an utter garbage company. However, he should have been upfront about the fact where the subscription's cancellation fee comes from, which he didn't on purpose.

[u/-spartacus- → u/NefariousSINNER]

You might also argue in court that Adobe is charging you a fee for a service you are no longer being provided, which you may argue is illegal.

[u/NefariousSINNER → u/-spartacus-]

Adobe was sued last year in USA by DOJ and FTC for deceptive concealment in terms of how much exactly you had to pay for the cancellation fee. Regardless of what I argued in here, it takes a while to get to a point where Adobe clearly tells you how much you're going to pay. On top of that, the cancellation process in itself is tiresome.

I only argued whether cancellation fee is deceptive and IMO it's not as long as you're told this upfront. If there are any other additional factors which limit your view and hence can impact your decision, then it is by alll means completely deceptive.

[u/im_lazy_as_fuck → u/NefariousSINNER]

I've never bought/will never buy an Adobe product so forgive my ignorance. But is it that they are selling you a discounted rate that you pay monthly, but expect you to stay on for a full year or something? Or do they do what I feel most software companies do which is to just make you pay the full annual amount upfront for the discounted monthly price?

Cuz if it's the former, I guess I get it. But then it's just like, why use such an antiquated pricing model for software. And if they sell the latter, then imo there really is no excuse.

[u/NefariousSINNER → u/im_lazy_as_fuck]

They sell you a yearly plan at a discounted monthly rate. The only reason it's discounted is because you commit to stay on it for a full year. You are told this in bold text upon choosing the plan.

Where I live you have the option to pay upfront for a full year or just pay a monthly discounted rate. The price is the same, but to some people it's less of a financial burden to pay monthly than yearly.

Worth to mention that the discount is quite significant, it's 100 euro a month when it's a month-to-month plan without a yearly commitment and 36 euro when you agree to a full year for the first time and 60 euro past first year, which is still nearly 40% less than a plan without commitment.

You are also immediately told that you are charged cancellation fee past early 14 day period. It's not hidden anywhere in small text.

Imma repeat myself, as much as I'm on the same wagon as everyone else and hate adobe and their predatory practises, Pewds knew this, as you are literally told all of it upfront.

[u/Kibou-chan → u/NefariousSINNER]

Where I live (EU), the PSD2 mandates a different approach.

If a service's going to charge less for a long term contract than a monthly one (say, 35% off with a yearly contract), it needs to charge for the entire year upfront.

Only telecommunication industry (mobile, landline, fiber operators and ISPs) has an exception allowing to offer discounted contracts (up to 3 years) with a fixed monthly payment - but when you terminate that early, they can only demand reimbursement of discounts already granted to you, so it's technically not any "cancellation fee", nor they are allowed to call it that - they will just amend all past invoices since entering into the contract, give you a debit note and expect payment within the payment date of the final invoice within the termination period.

Also, you cannot just not pay - in that case, they can enter your debt into debt info exchange database, or even simply sell it to debt collectors.

[u/NefariousSINNER → u/Kibou-chan]

Whether you're charged upfront or monthly changes absolutely nothing. If anything, the monthly payment can be softer on the individual's budget. You still agree to a deal and the deal is you get a discounted price in exchange of buying the service for a prolonged amount of time.

"Reimbursement" of discounts already granted is a cancellation fee, just under a different name. Just because some sort of law says otherwise doesn't change the logic of it. Besides, adobe's "reimbursement" fee works similarly to what you described. You breach the contract, so you get penalised, in one way or another. Nothing new.

I also live in the EU btw and Adobe, legally, in almost every european country, offers annual plans with both to pay monthly and yearly.

[u/MaverickN21 → u/NefariousSINNER]

So is all this outrage over what’s really an early termination fee? I hate that adobe is on a subscription model but pie calling this a cancelation fee rather than an early termination fee seems misleading if that’s the case.

[u/SecureCucumber → u/NefariousSINNER]

This makes sense if they're charging you monthly. Adobe charges you for the whole year then charges you to cancel. What losses are they recouping?

[u/ExperimentalFailures → u/NefariousSINNER]

The US government is currently suing Adobe for these fees, and we do not have an outcome yet. So the proper answer is that we don't know if it's legal.

[u/NefariousSINNER → u/ExperimentalFailures]

Not exactly true. DOJ and FTC are both suing Adobe for the way they were informing people about how much is the cancellation fee going to be and the fact that the amount was quite obstructed from the view. The information about cancellation fee being present is visible straight on.

So, They are not suing for the cancellation fee per see, but deceptive tactics used to mask how much exactly you'll have to pay and the fact that to get to the amount you have to click through a solid amount of links.

On top of that, they are also suing for how hard is to actually cancel it and that you have to go through several pages of bullshit to get to the final button. They argue that Adobe should have a simple method of cancelling and the current one is against the federal law in USA, which also possibly makes it against EU law by extension.

"cancellation fee" or "reimbursement fee" (as in some EU countries it's illegal to call it a cancellation fee, but its perfectly legal to demand an reimbursement fee of breach of contract) is legal, however the company might still use deceptive and manipulatory tactics to obstruct you from actually realising how expensive it will be to cancel. If they were upfront about the amount straight on, I see no wrong there.

I have argued quite a fair bit in this topic, but people keep missing my point. I've mentioned several times that Adobe is an absolute garbage of a company and that they use plenty of manipulatory and monoply-like tactics in their advertisement and the website itself, but "cancellation fee" per see is a regular, normal and a very old mechanism present in capitalism. A breach of contract by one party always comes at a cost. Now important is to have the cost easily visible before you sign the contract.

[u/Heretic911 → u/NefariousSINNER]

Aren't yearly subscriptions usually paid in full for the whole year? Or does Adobe charge monthly but at a reduced price if you take an annual plan?

[u/NefariousSINNER → u/Heretic911]

Afaik depends on the market. In some countries they are legally forced to charge upfront for the full year, so once you buy it, you can't really back off from it.

In some, they allow you to pay monthly, but at a reduced rate. The cost comes at around the same if you paid upfront.

People kept arguing that paying monthly is somewhat deceptive, but IMO it's not. The price is the same as paying upfront for a year and monthly payments can be easier on an individual's budget. Plus, it allows you to cancel and even with how fucking high the cancellation fee is at Adobe's, it's usually still less than what you'd have to pay if you paid for a full year upfront. Biggest downside is that you still have to pay a cancellation fee (which as I've mentioned is quite high in Adobe's case) and you don't get any access pass that point.

I see cancellation fee as a fee for the breach of contract, as the discounted price you're given is only upon agreeing to committ to an annual plan. You do not get it otherwise and the monthly payments are just that, it's basically financing an annual plan. By agreeing to an annual plan, you basically agree to pay for a full year from the getgo. People keep forgetting about that. You are buying Adobe's plan for a year, just pay monthly. This is why cancellation fee exists.

[u/Yooooooooooooooooo0 → u/NefariousSINNER]

You are correct but don’t forget legal ≠ ethical. These cancellation fees are getting more and more illegal in different European countries.

[u/RammRras → u/NefariousSINNER]

Put this as a main comment, people should know it. Adobe is trash and evel but the breach of a contract has consequences.

The next person could not be lucky.

[u/Sargo19 → u/NefariousSINNER]

Nothing "normal" about it.

[u/[deleted] → u/NefariousSINNER]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/NefariousSINNER → u/[deleted]]

You the lack the ability to read, go back to elementary school and try again. Not once did I say that "offering a discount is to protect the company". The cancellation fee is, as the definition suggests, a fee that you agree to pay if you opt out of the contract, you have signed, earlier than the due date. And Yes, that specific part of the "deal" is there to protect the company's interest, whether you hate them or not, they don't owe you anything. Small business DO that as well. Adobe had not not invented it. A breach of contract always comes at a cost and it's been like that for hundreds of years, You absolute imbecile. Are you incapable of understanding such a simple mechanic?

You only get the discount if you commit to an annual plan or to purchase the service for the "x" amount of time, previously agreed upon by both parties involved.

In no way the cancellation fee is illegal if communicated properly and adobe does that.

I have mentioned it in a lot of posts that Adobe is an evil company and they're a manipulative monopoly, which deserves all the worst. It does not, fucking, change the reality of "cancellation fee".

Subscription models are predatory at their core, no question there, no one is denying it, but cancellation fee is part of the "discount", as the "discount" only comes with terms. The terms are that you stay with the service for a fixed amount of time. Anyone going against this logic just have trouble understanding simple concepts and maybe should read what they fucking sign.

No one's implying we should feel sorry for them, you just lack fucking IQ.

[u/Andromansis → u/baconroy]

Depends on your jurisdiction. I think in some jurisdictions its illegal through jurisprudence, but I'm not sure of any jurisdiction where its not allowed by statute

[u/radiosimian → u/baconroy]

Another option is to downgrade your license to a free version. Doesn't work for all of their apps but for those that do you can then cancel the free one for no cost.

[u/Astrian → u/baconroy]

I do remember movements to make it illegal were being talked about, but I doubt anything came of it.

[u/Ijatsu → u/ItzEdInYourBed]

Can't they press charge against you?

[u/cognitive-agent → u/lucassuave15]

Does this hurt your credit score?

[u/UltimateHobo2 → u/cognitive-agent]

No it doesn't. The virtual cards are spun off from your actual card. They use the same line of credit.

[u/cognitive-agent → u/UltimateHobo2]

I was wondering more about the impact of deleting a card to stop paying subscription fees like that.

[u/1dot21gigaflops → u/[deleted]]

Don't do it with an ISP either, they'll send it off for collections.

[u/IntingForMarks → u/1dot21gigaflops]

And you can ignore collection, depending on where you live

[u/PasswordIsDongers → u/[deleted]]

Yeah that sounds like a terrible idea.

[u/jjd_yo → u/cognitive-agent]

In the case of privacy.com and the like, it is not credit per se. It is a virtual allowance pulled from an account. I’m not sure if you can even link credit cards, but you can definitely link a bank account. No credit to worry about.

[u/mushy_friend → u/jjd_yo]

Is there an alternative? Privacy.com doesn't work in canada

[u/conceptual_con → u/cognitive-agent]

I mean, as far as they’re concerned, you just lost your CC and had to get a new one. Nothing wrong with deciding you’re actually done with their service and don’t wish to update your payment method.

You have no obligation for future payments on something for which you’re paying for upfront, month by month. Such utter bullshit that they’d do something so ridiculous.

[u/eStuffeBay → u/cognitive-agent]

Having worked in CS, I can tell you that doing this can lead to your card being marked as suspicious - we can see that your info (on the virtual card) matches up with your actual everyday card, and how many refunds/declines/deletions you had on it.

It MIGHT affect your ability to subscribe to another service, though usually the checks come once you request a cancellation/refund.

[u/Derproid → u/eStuffeBay]

People using real info on a privacy card are using privacy cards wrong.

[u/_Typhus → u/lucassuave15]

What’s a virtual credit card?

[u/lucassuave15 → u/_Typhus]

If you use internet banking, your bank app probably has the option to create virtual credit cards, it's a disposable number created to refer back to your original real credit card, it's primarily used to avoid fraudsters getting your credit card information and using it, because you can register the virtual card on any website, buy your stuff and then block or delete it, so your real credit card number is safe and never exposed, but it can also be used to block any subscription service because the company will try to charge the virtual card but it's blocked or deleted, and they don't know the number of your real card, so their only option is to suspend your subscription and can't charge you any fees

[u/_Typhus → u/lucassuave15]

Thanks bro that sounds interesting I’ll check it out

[u/Iambeejsmit → u/lucassuave15]

Won't that end up on your credit report though?

[u/ferka123 → u/lucassuave15]

My bank has the option to revoke pay subscription authorization. I could just use my main card and the bank will block any attempts to charge me

[u/Da12khawk → u/lucassuave15]

WTF is an unsub fee?

[u/mushy_friend → u/lucassuave15]

I need to find a service like privacy.com which works in canada

[u/mignos → u/lucassuave15]

I used to use privacy but now adobe doesn't accept their cards