[torstenvl]

> you're still legally obligated to pay for the subscription since you have agreed to the terms of service during sign up

Except they didn't agree to them, because they didn't know about them, and they might not be legally obligated to pay, depending on the jurisdiction.

It's pretty clear that there wasn't a "meeting of the minds" in most of these situations.

I don't use Adobe but if I got bit by this I'd definitely take them to small claims.

[Jare]

> because they didn't know about them

I want to agree with this, but can't in strict terms. "Annual plan, paid monthly" item description next to the price is hard to defend as something unreadable. Maybe it's just me, but anytime I see "annual plan", I know I'm signing up for a year, and that commitment pretty much always comes with advantages (less total price) and disadvantages (cancellation fees) compared to shorter commitments.

It's hard to deny the pileup of dark patterns in this and many other subscription services is disgusting and I wish the legal precedent was clear that customer clarity and control always trumps service clauses. Over a decade ago I established as a rule for myself that anything "free" that requires me to enter my credit card is in fact not free. Anytime I consider sidestepping the rule, I know I have to be REALLY sure and read everything. Yep, "limited trial with pre-accepted subscription but hey you can cancel anytime!" which is common in mobile, is always a no no from me.

[torstenvl]

I think this is a question of fact, but isn't consistent with OP. Either Adobe tricked them and they genuinely didn't know and it's a dark pattern.... or it isn't a trick/dark pattern and they did know.

But if the part of the agreement that talks about canceling is above the fold and the part that says there are liquidated damages of half the remaining annual payments is hidden behind invisible scroll bars, I know which way I would be likely to rule if I were the judge.