[dead]
The only options they have is single seat or "talk to us" Enterprise level and for basically a one-person company using a virtual assistant we pretty much fall through the cracks there.
Is 35 million and the potential for future punishment a sufficient deterrent?
Basically, take the Californian setup, and apply it to the whole US. And pretty much every country in Europe.
Daylight robbery.
This sounds like it should carry criminal penalties?
It took hours of online chat argument with the unfortunate real employee fielding such pissed customers, and threats of legal action, eventually citing their legal counsel by email address and full name (from the Conde Nast site), before they agreed to _not_ charge me whatever obscene yearly subscription would be.
They can burn in crooked hell after that nonsense. I wonder if the Reddit people are bothered by their owner, as I had a personally signed generally cheery note from maybe Alexis back when i first subscribed and bought a tshirt, going on 20 years ago i guess.
[dead]
Good luck reversing that and bringing back the "giant enterprises may be assumed harmful" standard (the one under which it was possible to win these cases more than once in a blue moon, without unreasonable costs) now that rich right-wingers just openly steer most news media.
Shutterstock should care how much OP paid, because if they were paying a subscription and not maxing it out, Shutterstock lost money because they had a draconian TOS that they aggressively enforced to their own detriment.
What is your strategy for all you can eat buffets?
[deleted]
My spouse got fucked by Shutterstock and we have to have a calendar reminder to cancel this when the year is up, since cancelation prior will result in us still paying out the year, but not getting the remainder of the service.
They're extremely scummy. I could certainly block the charges, but they'd just come after us and cause a headache.
[deleted]
[dead]
A lot of people sign up for discounted annual commitments though then complain when they can't cancel before the year is up.
So yes, I complained about that.
They gave you a months notice of the price increase and you didn't cancel until after it went into effect?
Adobe software being a subscription service is nonsense too, but thats for another discussion.
It's not at 100% feature parity with PS but it's pretty darn close.
If you cancel in the first 14 days they terminate immediately and refund you. After the 14 days the subscription is cancelled and you keep access until the point you paid for. If you signed up for an annual contract you have a cancel fee of 50% of the remaining agreed amount.
Never give them your actual residential address (they don't need to know it), birth day, or SSN, or be tricked into giving them such. If they ask on any customer service chat or phone, the answer is they don't need to know it.
Without these things they can't exactly put it on your credit report, either. They may send it to collectors, but don't talk to them. Let them cry. They still won't serve you a court summons over $50.
Keep businesses in check from this money-grabbing behavior. Any kind of subscription should be easily cancellable.
Quick note -- Reddit went public in 2024, so Condé Nast is no longer their owner.
But when Corporate does it, we just handwave it way.
Your comparison is actually more like if you just ordered a regular meal and then shared it between two people which is allowed...
Also I should note that users are a useful concept for businesses so that they can manage usage and things like access control easily but for me I didn't need that so a single user was sufficient.
I remember when it was like $600 for photoshop for a single version(like 25 years ago so what would that be today?). The subscription pricing is a steal.
Instead they killed it, they clearly do not want to cannibalize their subscription offing. It clearly makes them more money.
Your first point is valid, I was misunderstanding the yearly subscription pricing, they offer an upfront payment as well as a monthly (but with year commitment).
I believe still however, if you pay for a year, cancel, you still get access cut off. Which is absurd.
>I believe still however, if you pay for a year, cancel, you still get access cut off. Which is absurd.
I've not seen anyone claiming this actually happened but maybe I just missed them? Everyone I've seen has said the opposite.
is this a business relationship with trust and maturity?
It's not complex or dramatic.
There are a number of subscriptions where I regularly want only a single month of service at a time.
Where’s the theft?
It’s perfectly normal to have a fee for breaking a lease. And that’s what an annual subscription paid monthly is anyway. It’s a commitment for an extended period of time.
If you could just stop paying and retain the discounted rate, what is an annual subscription vs a monthly one?
They did a lot more than just making it hard to cancel, too: https://www.deceptive.design/brands/adobe
The first one in your deceptive design was:
Adobe: Unclear yearly subscription terms and cancellation fees "Apparently monthly subscriptions, but you are signed up for a year. Cancelling early results in a 50% of remaining months subscriptions being applied as a cancellation charge."
Then you click through to look at it and the button the user selects says
Annual, Paid Monthly Fee applies if you cancel after 14 days
With an information popup.
Scrolling through the rest all of it is them just selecting this option without reading the details then being upset when the Annual plan is an annual plan.
I have no clue why they decided to settle that lawsuit since they still have the same plan. I'm not a lawyer.
after the original thread a year or so ago, team made a clearer way to show pricing options to give ppl/teams who buy an annual sub a discount w/o paying it all up front
So the clear language is new. And that doesn't touch on the losing access during the current billing period either.
> I have no clue why they decided to settle that lawsuit
Because they have changed their subscription page as part of the settlement. All the posters telling you how Adobe ripped them off are describing Adobe from before the settlement.
[1] Adobe's subscription model deploys recurring annual plans or termination with massive penalty - https://x.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1660907518430699523
This is exactly what Shutterstock does. What's maddening is that you can be getting a monthly charge, but are locked into a year contract. If you cancel, they'll continue to charge monthly but without being able to use the service. It's absurd.
Do you think that is fair? After all they gave you 30 days!
Even if it were technically legal it should distress you.
>https://x.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1660907518430699523
This screen shot is too heavily cropped for me to know exactly what the page explained. I'm going to go ahead and assume this was intentional on the part of the x poster. I've been using Adobe subscriptions on an off for several years so before this point and somehow manage to continue to be able to cancel.
And they chased me for months to update my card after I’d cancelled it.
Please stop attacking people’s genuine lived experience of a company’s genuinely bad practice…