One time for my small business I shared a login with one of my employees and they tried to get us to buy some sort of Enterprise subscription because they claimed that dozens of IP addresses were logging into the account and when we refused they simply closed our account. We were paying like over $300 per month and not even using the full subscription limits... We ended up finding a cheaper solution and now just use AI images so yeah it was pretty dumb on their part.
jaynate 20 days ago [-]
[flagged]
weird-eye-issue 20 days ago [-]
I didn't use the service. Well sometimes I would log in just to check they were actively using it and seeing which images were licensed to make sure they weren't using it for other purposes (remote employee). Only my one employee actually used it. I think she used a VPN which is why they thought dozens of people were using it apparently. Regardless the only loser in all of this was Shutterstock...
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.
margalabargala 20 days ago [-]
It's not predatory, it's just Shutterstock being shitty. And in this case, self-destructive.
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.
weird-eye-issue 20 days ago [-]
Yes exactly it's not like it's unlimited downloads we had a fixed amount of images per month
s1artibartfast 20 days ago [-]
Why is number of images more 'real' than number of users?
What is your strategy for all you can eat buffets?
ktallett 20 days ago [-]
That's a different scenario. All you can eat buffets people will turn up and all eat a similar amount. At a company, multiple people will want to logon and look but fundamentally the only entity that needs to download is the business. Each staff member won't each be downloading similar numbers of photos. It makes more sense just to have multiple access points to one fixed account.
s1artibartfast 18 days ago [-]
Most companies will happily sell you an Enterprise license or floating seats for a different price.
weird-eye-issue 20 days ago [-]
That's a terrible analogy because an all you can eat buffet is effectively unlimited but as I already mentioned the number of images was limited.
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.
Citizen_Lame 20 days ago [-]
Show some manners.
ktallett 20 days ago [-]
If your business is only viable due to shady subscription practices then it doesn't deserve to be running, whether it's Adobe, gyms, or whatever.
chancek 20 days ago [-]
A great idea of a product is some sort of unified system for companies to correctly manage subscriptions. There needs to be standards for what makes a user flow acceptable or not when it comes to cancellations.
To add to this, Apple has the subscriptions panel on iOS in the settings app showing you everything on your account including third party apps as long as you subscribed through apps instead of websites.
recursive 20 days ago [-]
Why would a company participate in this? Most don't seem interested in making cancellation easier.
20 days ago [-]
dawnerd 20 days ago [-]
Because they like money and having different choices for consumers to give them money wins out.
benoau 20 days ago [-]
But they make way more money implementing the dark pattern playbook. It's hardly an accident when subscriptions are hard to cancel it's a deliberate optimization.
neallindsay 20 days ago [-]
You have to participate in order to get access to most iPhone users.
Modified3019 20 days ago [-]
I use privacy.com virtual cards. I make a card for each vendor, and define a limit for it. I can kill the cards anytime.
echoangle 20 days ago [-]
Just because you revoke payment doesn’t mean you cancelled (at least in Europe). If you just stop paying, they will sue you to get the money.
supern0va 20 days ago [-]
Yep, in the US you can have the debt sent to collections.
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.
x86hacker1010 20 days ago [-]
Same. Apparently their privacy policy is sketchy as hell but the product has been consistent for over 12 years of using it
19 days ago [-]
rectang 20 days ago [-]
Did Shutterstock come out money ahead?
Is 35 million and the potential for future punishment a sufficient deterrent?
bpodgursky 20 days ago [-]
Look at the stock history. The company is on life support. This is basically an entire year of earnings.
josh_p 20 days ago [-]
Getty’s trying to acquire them pending approval from UK’s regulatory body.
altrum 20 days ago [-]
regardless, still likely came out ahead
zackify 20 days ago [-]
Can they please do this with at&t internet.
level09 20 days ago [-]
+ and Adobe Creative Suite
daveguy 20 days ago [-]
I'm old enough to remember when we had a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to push back against this kind of anti-consumer crap. It got doge'd by Dumpty/Musk.
paulddraper 20 days ago [-]
They stopped Shutterstock?
daveguy 19 days ago [-]
I'd be willing to bet it was their consumer complaint system that informed the FTC. They have a interagency agreement for crossreferral. Hopefully they didn't have to cut that back with the 90% doge cut. But don't worry, we will restore funding and make it more powerful after we de-dumpty the federal govt.
CM30 20 days ago [-]
Good. There needs to be a US-wide law that any method used to sign up for a subscription has to be a valid way to unsubscribe too. If you allow users to sign up online, you should also be required to let them unsubscribe online too.
Basically, take the Californian setup, and apply it to the whole US. And pretty much every country in Europe.
HardwareLust 20 days ago [-]
The law should be simple. It should take the same amount of effort, or less, to unsubscribe as it did to subscribe.
ge96 20 days ago [-]
Gyms
3vo-ai 20 days ago [-]
[flagged]
whh 20 days ago [-]
Adobe needs to be next. I had to cancel a card because that was easier than cancelling Creative Cloud.
level09 20 days ago [-]
+1. They doubled my fee, treated silence as consent for a yearly renewal, then tried to charge a cancellation fee based on that inflated price.
Daylight robbery.
sanswork 20 days ago [-]
Adobe isn't hard to cancel if you sign up for monthly subscriptions. I do it fairly regularly because I need PS in short bursts.
A lot of people sign up for discounted annual commitments though then complain when they can't cancel before the year is up.
IneffablePigeon 20 days ago [-]
I had been paying monthly for 13 years straight and they still demanded a cancellation fee because it turned out I was on an annual commitment (which by the way they hiked the price of by 50% with a month’s notice and by the time you notice the larger payment go out you are in a whole new 12 months).
So yes, I complained about that.
sanswork 20 days ago [-]
Ok so you were on an annual plan to save money and when you cancelled you had to pay an exit fee to account for the annual discount. Seems reasonable to me.
They gave you a months notice of the price increase and you didn't cancel until after it went into effect?
HDBaseT 20 days ago [-]
An annual plan shouldn't require a termination fee. If I purchase an Annual Subscription, I should be able to cancel it whenever, with no fee whilst retaining the benefits for my subscription, as I paid for a whole year up front anyways....
Adobe software being a subscription service is nonsense too, but thats for another discussion.
sanswork 20 days ago [-]
Yes, and if you get an annual plan from adobe and pay up front there is no fee for cancelling. The fee is if you get an annual plan with a monthly payment and cancel early.
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.
HDBaseT 20 days ago [-]
If the subscription pricing was a "steal" and the perpetual licensing was genuinely more expensive and worse, they'd still offer the perpetual licensing.
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.
sanswork 20 days ago [-]
The subscription pricing makes it more accessible to consumers where as previously the only people that paid for licenses were companies(and probably only large companies given it was basically always the most popular warez). So they charge less per release but they dramatically increase the possible consumer base and release lumpy revenue based around semi-regular annual releases with constant cash flow. So on a per user basis it is without a doubt cheaper but overall they can still make a lot more money.
>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.
m463 20 days ago [-]
Take a step back and think of the company who designed this machiavellian scheme and generated this dramatic situation...
is this a business relationship with trust and maturity?
sanswork 20 days ago [-]
"We will give you access to annual pricing discounts but not require you to pay the full year up front"
It's not complex or dramatic.
m463 20 days ago [-]
"you pay what you use"
hartator 20 days ago [-]
Shouldn’t auto renew and auto commit though.
sanswork 20 days ago [-]
Why? It's a subscription auto-renew is the default. As for auto-commit why would they change your subscription choices on you without you choosing it?
Marsymars 20 days ago [-]
> It's a subscription auto-renew is the default.
There are a number of subscriptions where I regularly want only a single month of service at a time.
sanswork 20 days ago [-]
Then cancel your subscription before its over? I'm not seeing what the problem is here.
DangitBobby 20 days ago [-]
Because it's not the price you agreed on? Crazy what you people are willing to accept as normal.
sanswork 20 days ago [-]
The notification is telling you of the new price. If you don't do anything at that point then it is the price you agreed on.
DangitBobby 18 days ago [-]
Not how agreements work.
HDBaseT 20 days ago [-]
What happens if Adobe changes the price from $299 yearly to 29k?
Do you think that is fair? After all they gave you 30 days!
sanswork 20 days ago [-]
Why do you feel the need to make up ridiculous numbers?
DangitBobby 20 days ago [-]
Why are you defending obvious theft?
koolba 20 days ago [-]
> Why are you defending obvious theft?
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?
DangitBobby 20 days ago [-]
Is upping the fee and automatically confirming the contract without a re-up "perfectly normal"? Seems doubtful.
anomaly_ 20 days ago [-]
Yes? Commercial leases (and residential for that matter) commonly have increase clauses that operate automatically (CPI, 3/4/5%, market review, etc).
DangitBobby 18 days ago [-]
Varies by jurisdiction. Residential leases typically require notice, and inedequate notice (both by time and by method) nullifies the agreement. This is because the legal world generally agrees that contracts that would expose consumers with practically zero legal access or knowledge to one-sided contracts providing one party unilateral control would be unconscionable.
Even if it were technically legal it should distress you.
whyenot 20 days ago [-]
Because it is not obviously theft. If you are getting a discount for making a year-long commitment, and then cancel, breaking that commitment, isn't a cancelation fee appropriate?
DangitBobby 20 days ago [-]
Is that the whole story? Or did you miss literally half of what GP said happened?
It's not at 100% feature parity with PS but it's pretty darn close.
sanswork 20 days ago [-]
Appreciate the suggestion but I'm terrible at editing so I just stick with PS because the cost for a month or two when I need it isn't much and it's really easy to find videos walking through exactly what I need to do. Even a single hour spent trying to translate a tutorial would more than wipe out the savings.
cryzinger 20 days ago [-]
Totally fair, I understand :)
chatmasta 20 days ago [-]
No, the complaint with Adobe is that if you cancel, they terminate access immediately rather than at the end of the billing period. There is no explanation for this other than a predatory one; they’re betting you’ll forget to cancel by the time your bill comes around. The immediate termination is effectively depriving you of the next N months of access for which you already paid.
sanswork 20 days ago [-]
This isn't true though. Again like with the annual plan people are confusing things. I just looked it up and checked a few reddit posts to confirm and heres what's happening.
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.
Your deceptive design link is literally outlining the plan discussed in the rest of this thread.
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.
like_any_other 20 days ago [-]
You are describing the current state of Adobe subscription. If you check out the post linked on the deceptive.design page [1], one of the replies states [2]:
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.
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.
like_any_other 20 days ago [-]
Nowhere did anyone say people were unable to cancel. What they said was that cancellation fees were hidden, and that access to Adobe products was disabled as soon as a subscription was cancelled, even for periods that were already paid for.
sanswork 20 days ago [-]
Nothing you've posted has shown that last claim. Everything I've found has shown it to be a misunderstanding.
whh 20 days ago [-]
I was on the monthly plan mate. I don’t know what UX you’re talking about but it was literally impossible to find how to cancel it.
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…
supern0va 20 days ago [-]
>No, the complaint with Adobe is that if you cancel, they terminate access immediately rather than at the end of the billing period. There is no explanation for this other than a predatory one
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.
nih567 20 days ago [-]
I hope freelancer.com will be the next one. I canceled and renewed my credit card because of them. Even though I deleted my account, they continued to withdraw money.
charcircuit 20 days ago [-]
Canceling a card isn't the same thing as canceling a subscription. Most businesses will have you still pay via a different payment method to resolve your debt.
dheera 20 days ago [-]
They'll invoice you but don't actually pay. They aren't going to take you to court over a $50/month subscription; the easier route for them is to just disable your account, which is what you wanted anyway.
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.
charcircuit 20 days ago [-]
What you are describing is fraud.
paulddraper 20 days ago [-]
From which party?
charcircuit 20 days ago [-]
The customer lying about their information to intentionally bypass companies' anti fraud systems.
paulddraper 18 days ago [-]
Ah okay. I thought it was companies deceiving people into subscriptions.
GreenVulpine 19 days ago [-]
Bullshit, it's perfectly fine and legal to refuse to give companies your address or SSN.
charcircuit 19 days ago [-]
You can refuse to give it. But intentionally giving a false address with the intention of being able to defraud the company by not paying a bill you owe them is fraud.
x86hacker1010 20 days ago [-]
Don’t they charge you to cancel or something? I also remember their suite being absolutely fucking dumb I never used it again
sanswork 20 days ago [-]
They let you sign up for an annual discount but still pay monthly. The cancelation fee is if you try to end the annual commitment early. If you just sign up monthly(seriously always do this when you see these offers) there is no cancellation fee.
hank9 20 days ago [-]
Figma isn't much better these days
raincole 20 days ago [-]
It's a dead company walking anyway. It might be the final blow.
runako 20 days ago [-]
> Shutterstock failed to get consent to charge consumers’ credit cards before charging them for subscriptions
This sounds like it should carry criminal penalties?
jjtheblunt 20 days ago [-]
Conde Nast is _horrible_ this way, tried for a second year in a row to charge me for Wired, which i do not subscribe to, could not explain where they got the idea i did, evidently had access through some dark pattern from years earlier to charge for something i must have bought as a magazine on iOS.
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.
runako 20 days ago [-]
> I wonder if the Reddit people are bothered by their owner
Quick note -- Reddit went public in 2024, so Condé Nast is no longer their owner.
jjtheblunt 19 days ago [-]
oh cool!
zurtri 20 days ago [-]
Well, if you or I did it - of course!
But when Corporate does it, we just handwave it way.
bch 20 days ago [-]
Pardon the pedantry, but I the current abbreviation of the price ("Shutterstock to pay $35M") should be "$35MM".
exabrial 20 days ago [-]
[flagged]
funimpoded 20 days ago [-]
Chicago School jerks got their way in the '70s and we effectively decided to stop doing that. This was the first notable fruit yielded by the postwar pro-rich/business "think tank" and intellectualism-washing push which was quickly followed by that set dominating almost everything.
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.
Rendered at 02:50:44 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
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.
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?
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.
Stripe? https://stripe.com/billing/subscriptions
Paypal? https://www.paypal.com/us/digital-wallet/manage-money/manage...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do you think that is fair? After all they gave you 30 days!
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?
Even if it were technically legal it should distress you.
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.
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
[2] https://x.com/scottbelsky/status/1661376319169372166
>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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.