New Class Action Targets Adobe's "Dark Pattern" Subscription Practices — A Call For Fairness And Full Disclosure

A new putative class action filed in the Northern District of California alleges that Adobe deceives consumers into year-long, automatically renewing "annual, billed monthly" plans, obscures material terms and early termination fees in fine print and hyperlinks, and makes cancellation unduly difficult. The complaint also challenges Adobe's dispute-resolution scheme, alleging the company refuses to pay arbitration fees and then forces consumers into small-claims court, depriving them of meaningful remedies. The suit seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and a declaration that Adobe's small-claims provision is unenforceable.

What the case is about

• The core allegation: Adobe prominently advertises per month pricing but defaults consumers into "annual, billed monthly" (ABM) commitments, while failing to clearly disclose that the plan auto renews and carries a steep early termination fee equal to 50% of remaining monthly payments if canceled within the first year. The complaint says these key terms are relegated to fine print and a web of hyperlinks rather than clearly and conspicuously presented at checkout.
• Cancellation obstacles: Plaintiffs allege Adobe's online cancellation flow requires navigating multiple screens, prompts, and sometimes live-agent interactions, with "offers" to deter cancellation; at times, online cancellation may be disabled, pushing consumers to other channels.
• Dispute resolution concerns: According to the complaint, Adobe requires a pre arbitration "informal" process, designates JAMS arbitration, but then refuses to pay JAMS fees and invokes a "small claims election" to shut down arbitration—effectively routing consumers to small claims court where counsel, discovery, and appeal are limited or unavailable.

Why this matters: fairness and full disclosure

At bottom, the case is about transparency. Subscription sellers must clearly and conspicuously disclose auto renewal terms, obtain affirmative consent, and provide easy, immediate online cancellation. Consumers should not be surprised by hidden minimum commitments, opaque renewal mechanics, or penalty fees buried in small type or behind hyperlinks. While Adobe is the defendant here, the industry at large should take note—companies like Oracle have also been criticized by customers and commentators for burying impactful terms behind inconspicuous hyperlinks. Clear, front and center disclosures and frictionless cancellation build trust, reduce disputes, and align with modern statutory requirements and regulator expectations.

Summary of the claims pled

The complaint asserts California consumer protection causes of action and seeks declaratory relief:

• Declaratory judgment: A declaration that Adobe's "small claims" provision is unconscionable and unenforceable; that Adobe has breached or waived any agreement to arbitrate by refusing to pay required arbitration fees; and that its terms do not constitute a valid FAA arbitration agreement as used.
• California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA): For alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding subscription characteristics and cancellation terms; advertising without intent to sell as advertised; representing rights/obligations that differ from reality; and inserting unconscionable terms.
• False Advertising Law (FAL): For allegedly untrue or misleading statements by commission and omission regarding pricing, plan nature (monthly vs. annual commitment), renewal, and cancellation penalties.
• Unfair Competition Law (UCL): "Unlawful," "unfair," and "fraudulent" prongs based on the same conduct, including alleged violations of the ARL, CLRA, and FAL; seeks restitution, disgorgement, and injunctive relief to stop deceptive designs and mandate clear disclosures.
• Automatic Renewal Law (ARL) violations as the predicate: Plaintiffs allege Adobe failed to present auto renewal terms "clearly and conspicuously," failed to obtain affirmative consent, failed to provide a retention capable acknowledgment with cancellation methods, misrepresented material facts, and failed to allow "online, at will" termination via a prominent link or immediate termination email—all resulting in unlawful charges and remedies including restitution.

Alleged practices highlighted in the complaint

• "Annual, billed monthly" default and fee disclosure: The ABM plan's monthly price is emphasized visually; the annual commitment and 50% early termination fee are not clearly called out in proximity to consent, according to plaintiffs. The complaint details screens where fine print is minimized or pushed below the fold, and where the "Terms of Use" and "Subscription and Cancellation Terms" hyperlinks appear only at the final payment stage after personal and billing information is entered.
• Early termination fee: For ABM plans, canceling in the first year triggers a fee equal to 50% of remaining monthly payments—allegedly a material term not disclosed clearly and conspicuously during enrollment.
• "Cancel anytime" ambiguity: Plaintiffs say "cancel anytime" messaging conflicts with fee deadlines and limited refund windows, confusing consumers about real cancellation rights.
• Obstacles to cancellation: Multi page flows, prompts, and occasional forced customer support interactions; sometimes online cancellation is unavailable (e.g., during payment processing issues), contrary to ARL's "online, at will" mandate, plaintiffs allege.
• Arbitration/Small claims pivot: The complaint asserts Adobe refused to pay JAMS' fees after demands were filed and invoked a small claims election to administratively close arbitrations—then argued consumers must proceed in small claims court, which cannot award the injunctive relief sought under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA.

Relief sought

Plaintiffs seek class certification; damages; restitution and disgorgement; declaratory relief regarding the dispute-resolution terms; civil penalties; injunctive orders to cure disclosures and cancellation flows; and fees and costs.

Nature of the class action proceeding

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of all natural persons in the United States who paid for Adobe subscriptions during the applicable limitations period. Plaintiffs allege common questions predominate—such as whether Adobe's presentation of auto renewal terms was clear and conspicuous, whether affirmative consent was obtained, whether disclosures and cancellation methods satisfied the ARL, and whether marketing and UX choices were misleading or unfair. They contend a class action is the superior method to resolve uniform design and disclosure practices, given relatively modest per consumer losses and the burdens of individual litigation.

Takeaways for businesses and consumers

• Put critical terms up front: If a plan is annual with monthly billing, say so conspicuously at every relevant step, alongside any early termination fee and renewal mechanics.
• Obtain clear consent: Secure express, unambiguous assent to auto renewal terms; don't bury consent in small print or optional hyperlinks late in checkout.
• Make cancellation immediate and online: Provide a prominent "Cancel" link or button and allow immediate termination without friction or delays, consistent with modern statutory standards.
• Design for trust: Hidden hyperlinks, fine print traps, or obstructive flows draw litigation and regulatory scrutiny. Companies across the software and cloud ecosystem—including those, like Oracle, that have faced criticism for concealing impactful terms in nested links—should embrace transparent, consumer centric UX and disclosures.

Conclusion

The Foret v. Adobe class action illustrates how the modern contract of adhesion has evolved from fine print to fine links. As digital interfaces become the new vehicles for assent, courts and regulators are signaling that hidden hyperlinks and misleading design choices will not withstand scrutiny.

Software and cloud vendors that rely on automatic renewals or tiered billing should review their contracting processes now—before deceptive hyperlink practices become the next wave of consumer litigation.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.