US DOJ sues Adobe for ‘trapping’ users in subscriptions

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

Lawsuit makes bold claims regarding Adobe’s alleged wrongdoing

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

For years, Adobe has harmed consumers by enrolling them in its default, most lucrative 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 year-long commitment and a hefty early termination fee (“ETF”) that can amount to hundreds of dollars. Adobe clearly discloses the ETF only when subscribers attempt to cancel, turning the stealth ETF into a powerful retention tool…by trapping consumers in subscriptions they no longer want.

During enrollment, Adobe hides material terms of its APM plan in fine print and behind optional textboxes and hyperlinks, providing disclosures that are designed to go unnoticed and that most consumers never see. Adobe then deters cancellations by employing an onerous and complicated cancellation process. As part of this convoluted process, Adobe ambushes subscribers with the previously obscured ETF when they attempt to cancel. Through these practices, Adobe has violated federal laws designed to protect consumers.

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

Not the only Adobe controversy of late

Adobe recently stirred up controversy with a change to its terms & conditions that seemed to say it owned all its users’ work. The company later denied that interpretation and said it would be clarifying the language that was causing distress.

But this DOJ lawsuit will not be so easy to put in the past.