For everyone that whined about Capture One subscriptions

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
    Topic: For everyone that whined about Capture One subscriptions Read 115 Times
  • Bill Smith
    Bill Smith
    Silver Member
    Posts: 1
    Adobe Lightroom & Adobe Camera Raw
    on: June 22, 2024 at 3:48 pm

    “The U.S. government sued  Adobe on Monday for allegedly “trapping” customers in its default, most lucrative subscription plan. In a complaint, the Department of Justice (DOJ) writes that  Adobe locks customers into a year-long agreement that’s not effectively disclosed as such, and “ambushing” users with hefty hidden fees when they try to cancel.”

    More on “Adobe used hidden fee to trap people into paying for subscription plans”.

    Read more:

    J. D. Ramsey
    J. D. Ramsey
    Silver Member
    Posts: 18
    Re: For everyone that whined about Capture One subscriptions
    Reply #1 on: June 30, 2024 at 2:58 pm

    Don’t get how this justifies Capture One’s ridiculous pricing plan.  Bootom line is I don’t care about being “locked in” to LR since I will always use it for a year.  I suspect that at least 98% of photographers who use LR are similar.  I don’t object to DOJ finally clamping down on monopolistic practices after decades of not enforcing antitrust laws, but this seems like a waste of resources when there are much worse instances of monopolistic activities out there than this.

    Chris Kern
    Chris Kern
    Posts: 59
    Re: For everyone that whined about Capture One subscriptions
    Reply #2 on: June 30, 2024 at 6:21 pm

    This is not a lawsuit challenging Adobe’s subscription model or the prices Adobe charges, but rather the way the company presents the description of its licensing and termination provisions on its website.  The essence of the complaint is to enforce a U.S. federal law, the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, that requires companies using the Internet to solicit sales to “provide consumers with clear, accurate information and give sellers an opportunity to fairly compete with one another for consumers’ business.”  The government contends that Adobe has failed to do this:

    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 that 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.

    My guess (just a conjecture; I have no inside information) is that the decision to pursue this enforcement action against Adobe was a strategic one based at least some extent on Adobe’s market visibility and the resources at its disposal: even if the court awards the government all the relief it has requested, Adobe will survive and remain immensely profitable.  I suspect it is intended as a shot across the bow to alert the private sector in general that the Department of Justice is prepared to take legal action to pursue civil remedies for violation of the statute, and therefore to promote voluntary compliance with its terms by other companies.


Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.