US DOJ sues Adobe for ‘trapping’ users into subscriptions

Adobe is the latest target in the recent wave of high-profile lawsuits from the U.S. Department of Justice. The company’s subscription cancellation practices are a specific target of the DOJ, which the government says amounts to “trapping” users into subscriptions and has resulted in a formal lawsuit.

Lawsuit Makes Bold Claims About Adobe’s Alleged Wrongdoing

Here are some key quotes from today’s FTC filing:

For years, Adobe has harmed consumers by signing them up for its most lucrative default subscription plan without clearly disclosing important plan terms. Adobe does not adequately disclose to consumers that by signing up for the “annual, paid monthly” subscription plan (“APM plan”), they are agreeing to a one-year commitment and early termination fee (“ETF”) high prices which can amount to hundreds of dollars. Adobe only clearly discloses the ETF when subscribers attempt to cancel, turning the stealth ETF into a powerful retention tool… trapping consumers into subscriptions they no longer want.

During registration, Adobe hides important terms of its APM plan in small print and behind optional text boxes and hyperlinks, providing information designed to go unnoticed and that most consumers never see. Adobe then deters cancellations by employing an expensive and complicated cancellation process. As part of this convoluted process, Adobe ambushes subscribers with the previously hidden ETF when they attempt to cancel. Through these practices, Adobe violated federal laws designed to protect consumers.

As these quotes make clear, the filing is not at all shy about using bold language to highlight Adobe’s alleged wrongdoing. I myself have encountered these issues with Adobe’s cancellation process in the past and hope the new lawsuit results in lasting change for future cancelers.

This isn’t the only Adobe controversy of late

Adobe recently sparked controversy when it changed its terms and conditions that seemed to indicate that it owned all of its users’ work. The company later denied this interpretation and said it would clarify language that caused distress.

But this DOJ lawsuit won’t be so easy to put in the past.