Justice Department sues Adobe over subscription practices

The DOJ lawsuit takes aim at Adobe’s subscription cancellation process, alleging the company uses unfair practices to lock users into its most profitable plans.

According to the lawsuit, Adobe enrolls users in the “Annual, Paid Monthly” (APM) plan without properly informing them of the one-year commitment and substantial early termination fees (ETF), which can reach hundreds of dollars.

These fees are only visibly disclosed when users attempt to cancel their subscriptions, making them an important retention tool.

Adobe is accused of hiding critical terms in small print and behind obscure links, ensuring that many users are unaware of these terms.

The lawsuit claims the company’s complex and time-consuming cancellation process further discourages users from unsubscribing, ambushing them with hefty ETFs when they try to leave. Such practices, the DOJ asserts, violate federal consumer protection laws.

The DOJ complaint contains strong language about Adobe’s alleged wrongdoing. It is said, “For years, Adobe has harmed consumers by signing them up for its most lucrative default subscription plan without clearly disclosing important plan terms.

“Adobe fails to 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 high early termination fees (“ETF ) 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.”

The complaint also highlights the misleading nature of Adobe’s registration process, explaining that:

“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.

The language used in the DOJ filing is assertive, intended to emphasize the seriousness of Adobe’s alleged practices. Personal experiences with Adobe’s cancellation process echo these claims, with many users finding it difficult to cancel their subscription without facing unexpected charges. This lawsuit aims to make lasting changes to protect consumers from such practices in the future.

This lawsuit isn’t the only controversy Adobe has faced recently.

The company previously sparked outrage by changing its terms and conditions, which appeared to claim ownership of users’ work.

Although Adobe later clarified that this interpretation was incorrect and promised to revise the confusing language, the DOJ lawsuit presents a more daunting challenge.

Resolving the issues raised in this legal battle could prove a more complex task for Adobe.