US sues Adobe for hiding termination fees and making it difficult to cancel subscriptions

Adobe logo on San Jose, CA headquarters.

Image Credits: Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against Adobe alleging that the company deceives consumers by hiding the early-termination fee and making it difficult for people to cancel their subscriptions.

In the complaint filed on Monday, the DOJ wrote that “Adobe has harmed consumers by enrolling them in its default, most lucrative subscription plan without clearly disclosing important plan terms.”

The government says Adobe pushed consumers toward the “annual paid monthly” subscription without informing them that canceling the plan in the first year would cost hundreds of dollars.

Adobe only discloses the early-termination fees when subscribers attempt to cancel, and turns the early-termination fee into a “powerful retention tool” by trapping consumers in subscriptions that they no longer want, the complaint says.

“During enrollment, Adobe hides material terms of its APM plan in fine print and behind option textboxes and hyperlinks, proving disclosures that are designed to go unnoticed and that most consumers never see,” according to the complaint. “Adobe then deters cancellations by employing an onerous and complicated cancellation process.”

Adobe says it plans to refute the claims in court.

“Subscription services are convenient, flexible and cost effective to allow users to choose the plan that best fits their needs, timeline and budget,” said Adobe’s General Counsel and Chief Trust Officer Dana Rao, in a statement. “Our priority is to always ensure our customers have a positive experience. We are transparent with the terms and conditions of our subscription agreements and have a simple cancellation process.”

The DOJ’s complaint says Adobe has violated federal laws designed to protect consumers. The government is seeking “injunctive relief, civil penalties, equitable monetary relief, as well as other relief.”

Adobe shifted to a subscription model in 2012 and started requiring consumers to pay for access to the company’s software on a recurring basis. In the past, users could access the company’s software after paying a one-time fee.

Subscriptions account for most of the company’s revenue, according to the Federal Trade Commission, which launched a similar lawsuit against Amazon last year, saying it “knowingly” complicates the ability of customers of its Prime service to cancel their subscriptions.

US sues Adobe for hiding termination fees and making it difficult to cancel subscriptions

Adobe logo on San Jose, CA headquarters.

Image Credits: Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against Adobe alleging that the company deceives consumers by hiding the early-termination fee and making it difficult for people to cancel their subscriptions.

In the complaint filed on Monday, the DOJ wrote that “Adobe has harmed consumers by enrolling them in its default, most lucrative subscription plan without clearly disclosing important plan terms.”

The government says Adobe pushed consumers toward the “annual paid monthly” subscription without informing them that canceling the plan in the first year would cost hundreds of dollars.

Adobe only discloses the early-termination fees when subscribers attempt to cancel, and turns the early-termination fee into a “powerful retention tool” by trapping consumers in subscriptions that they no longer want, the complaint says.

“During enrollment, Adobe hides material terms of its APM plan in fine print and behind option textboxes and hyperlinks, proving disclosures that are designed to go unnoticed and that most consumers never see,” according to the complaint. “Adobe then deters cancellations by employing an onerous and complicated cancellation process.”

Adobe says it plans to refute the claims in court.

“Subscription services are convenient, flexible and cost effective to allow users to choose the plan that best fits their needs, timeline and budget,” said Adobe’s General Counsel and Chief Trust Officer Dana Rao, in a statement. “Our priority is to always ensure our customers have a positive experience. We are transparent with the terms and conditions of our subscription agreements and have a simple cancellation process.”

The DOJ’s complaint says Adobe has violated federal laws designed to protect consumers. The government is seeking “injunctive relief, civil penalties, equitable monetary relief, as well as other relief.”

Adobe shifted to a subscription model in 2012 and started requiring consumers to pay for access to the company’s software on a recurring basis. In the past, users could access the company’s software after paying a one-time fee. Subscriptions account for most of the company’s revenue, the Federal Trade Commission notes.

acquisition, merger, startup

How low can bitcoin ETF fees drop before it hurts a business?

acquisition, merger, startup

Image Credits: Getty Images

It’s been a little over a day since 11 spot bitcoin ETFs began trading in the U.S., following the SEC’s approval. While there was more initial volume than some expected, some of the approved issuers are taking extra steps to ensure that their product stands out from the pack.

On Thursday, Franklin Templeton’s Franklin Bitcoin ETF ranked sixth among the 11 for first day trading volume at $65.45 million by the end of the day.

But the company wants more. By Friday, the firm lowered its fee from 29 basis points to 19 basis points, making it the lowest post-waiver fee across all the spot bitcoin ETFs, 0.01% lower than Bitwise’s 0.2% fee. (Note: A number of issuers, Franklin included, are waiving fees for a limited time.) The highest fee stands at 1.5% for Grayscale’s Bitcoin Trust.

There’s reason to believe that spot bitcoin ETFs and other related products that may come to market will see strong demand over time, and major investment houses want a piece of the action. “People are waking up to this new type of investment ecosystem,” said Sandy Kaul, head of digital asset and industry advisory services at Franklin Templeton. “We’ve seen a definite expansion of interest from our client base in the past 12 to 18 months.”

The first day of trading saw $2.3 billion worth of trading volume across all the products, Bloomberg senior ETF analyst Eric Balchunas posted on X. An additional preexisting $2.3 billion from Grayscale’s GBTC fund, which converted into a spot bitcoin ETF on Wednesday, brought the 11 issuers’ total to $4.6 billion.

“Long term, I think this will definitely be well over one of our leading products in our $20 billion ETF franchise,” Kaul said. The 77-year-old firm manages over $1.4 trillion in assets under management. “We definitely see this as a major product and we see this as one with a lot of potential to grow. So we’re going to be patient because it’s so new, and many people are still trying to learn about it so it may grow slower than expected, or much faster, we don’t know what will happen.”

https://techcrunch.com/2024/01/10/grayscale-ceo-spot-bitcoin-etf/

“We want to really give investors as many benefits as possible to be able to see the impact this has on their portfolio,” Kaul said. “This is a more expensive product to launch than many other types of ETFs due to custodying — it’s been harder to come up with the right pricing on it.”

But like a game of limbo, many are asking: How low can you go with fees? While seven issuers are offering waived fees for a certain amount of time — or until they hit a certain amount of volume — zero fees are not going to last forever, and some argue that low fees can’t, either.

Considering the backdoor costs of insuring the bitcoin, paying custodians and other expenses, Franklin’s 0.19% fee could be making a dent in overall costs more than profiting. But maybe some of these businesses don’t care about that right now, if it means they can acquire more clients and volume.

“We decided that we have such belief in the long-term growth potential of the product,” Kaul said. “We rather people get the full benefit right away.”

Weighing fees and profits

For the fee-waiving period, Franklin and other issuers will pay the costs for expenses to begin with. “That’s a hard decision when you’re trying to launch a product and make it profitable,” Kaul said.

But not everyone agrees with this move. “I don’t think it helps being in the lower range when you factor in the risk of holding bitcoin in a custodian,” Valkyrie Funds co-founder Steven McClurg told TechCrunch+ this week. “Say insurance is needed in the future on those assets; you won’t be able to buy because your fees are too low.”

As issuers try to gauge the marketplace and its economics, in the short-term, there will be changes in fee structures, Kaul said. But Franklin’s previous trading in bitcoin and other portfolios give it an “advantage,” she said. “This isn’t new for us; we’ve dealt with custody, moving bitcoin in and out. Obviously, if something happened with insurance and the fee didn’t cover it, we’d revisit the fee structure, but we’ve run many ETFs and I don’t think we’d come out with pricing we couldn’t maintain.”

Kaul said she thinks Franklin’s spot bitcoin ETF will be at “break even” when its zero fee waiver conditions expire in August or when it hits $10 billion AUM (assets under management), whichever comes first. She also said the firm anticipates the costs it’s paying today will come down a little bit, giving them more leeway.

“I think this is going to be a slower build product,” Kaul said. “Not all the distribution partners we work with will be able to list it quickly or easily; it might take them six to 12 months to list the fund.”

She’s hopeful, but patient. The first year is all about helping the ETF product’s AUM continue to build, Kaul added. “We waited 10 years to get a spot bitcoin ETF, so we can be patient to watch it grow.”

acquisition, merger, startup

How low can bitcoin ETF fees drop before it hurts a business?

acquisition, merger, startup

Image Credits: Getty Images

It’s been a little over a day since 11 spot bitcoin ETFs began trading in the U.S., following the SEC’s approval. While there was more initial volume than some expected, some of the approved issuers are taking extra steps to ensure that their product stands out from the pack.

On Thursday, Franklin Templeton’s Franklin Bitcoin ETF ranked sixth among the 11 for first day trading volume at $65.45 million by the end of the day.

But the company wants more. By Friday, the firm lowered its fee from 29 basis points to 19 basis points, making it the lowest post-waiver fee across all the spot bitcoin ETFs, 0.01% lower than Bitwise’s 0.2% fee. (Note: A number of issuers, Franklin included, are waiving fees for a limited time.) The highest fee stands at 1.5% for Grayscale’s Bitcoin Trust.

There’s reason to believe that spot bitcoin ETFs and other related products that may come to market will see strong demand over time, and major investment houses want a piece of the action. “People are waking up to this new type of investment ecosystem,” said Sandy Kaul, head of digital asset and industry advisory services at Franklin Templeton. “We’ve seen a definite expansion of interest from our client base in the past 12 to 18 months.”

The first day of trading saw $2.3 billion worth of trading volume across all the products, Bloomberg senior ETF analyst Eric Balchunas posted on X. An additional preexisting $2.3 billion from Grayscale’s GBTC fund, which converted into a spot bitcoin ETF on Wednesday, brought the 11 issuers’ total to $4.6 billion.

“Long term, I think this will definitely be well over one of our leading products in our $20 billion ETF franchise,” Kaul said. The 77-year-old firm manages over $1.4 trillion in assets under management. “We definitely see this as a major product and we see this as one with a lot of potential to grow. So we’re going to be patient because it’s so new, and many people are still trying to learn about it so it may grow slower than expected, or much faster, we don’t know what will happen.”

https://techcrunch.com/2024/01/10/grayscale-ceo-spot-bitcoin-etf/

“We want to really give investors as many benefits as possible to be able to see the impact this has on their portfolio,” Kaul said. “This is a more expensive product to launch than many other types of ETFs due to custodying — it’s been harder to come up with the right pricing on it.”

But like a game of limbo, many are asking: How low can you go with fees? While seven issuers are offering waived fees for a certain amount of time — or until they hit a certain amount of volume — zero fees are not going to last forever, and some argue that low fees can’t, either.

Considering the backdoor costs of insuring the bitcoin, paying custodians and other expenses, Franklin’s 0.19% fee could be making a dent in overall costs more than profiting. But maybe some of these businesses don’t care about that right now, if it means they can acquire more clients and volume.

“We decided that we have such belief in the long-term growth potential of the product,” Kaul said. “We rather people get the full benefit right away.”

Weighing fees and profits

For the fee-waiving period, Franklin and other issuers will pay the costs for expenses to begin with. “That’s a hard decision when you’re trying to launch a product and make it profitable,” Kaul said.

But not everyone agrees with this move. “I don’t think it helps being in the lower range when you factor in the risk of holding bitcoin in a custodian,” Valkyrie Funds co-founder Steven McClurg told TechCrunch+ this week. “Say insurance is needed in the future on those assets; you won’t be able to buy because your fees are too low.”

As issuers try to gauge the marketplace and its economics, in the short-term, there will be changes in fee structures, Kaul said. But Franklin’s previous trading in bitcoin and other portfolios give it an “advantage,” she said. “This isn’t new for us; we’ve dealt with custody, moving bitcoin in and out. Obviously, if something happened with insurance and the fee didn’t cover it, we’d revisit the fee structure, but we’ve run many ETFs and I don’t think we’d come out with pricing we couldn’t maintain.”

Kaul said she thinks Franklin’s spot bitcoin ETF will be at “break even” when its zero fee waiver conditions expire in August or when it hits $10 billion AUM (assets under management), whichever comes first. She also said the firm anticipates the costs it’s paying today will come down a little bit, giving them more leeway.

“I think this is going to be a slower build product,” Kaul said. “Not all the distribution partners we work with will be able to list it quickly or easily; it might take them six to 12 months to list the fund.”

She’s hopeful, but patient. The first year is all about helping the ETF product’s AUM continue to build, Kaul added. “We waited 10 years to get a spot bitcoin ETF, so we can be patient to watch it grow.”

Google Play Store icon

Google adds new developer fees as part of the Play Store's DMA compliance plan

Google Play Store icon

Image Credits: KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV/AFP / Getty Images

Google today is sharing more details about the fees that will accompany its plan to comply with Europe’s new Digital Markets Act (DMA), the new regulation aimed at increasing competition across the app store ecosystem. While Google yesterday pointed to ways it already complied with the DMA — by allowing sideloading of apps, for example — it hadn’t yet shared specifics about the fees that would apply to developers, noting that further details would come out this week.

That time is now, as it turns out.

Today, Google shared that there will be two fees that apply to its External offers program, also announced yesterday. This new program allows Play Store developers to lead their users in the EEA outside their app, including to promote offers.

With these fees, Google is going the route of Apple, which reduced its App Store commissions in the EU to comply with the DMA but implemented a new Core Technology Fee that required developers to pay €0.50 for each first annual install per year over a 1 million threshold for apps distributed outside the App Store. Apple justified the fee by explaining that the services it provides developers extend beyond payment processing and include the work it does to support app creation and discovery, craft APIs, frameworks and tools to support developers’ app creation work, fight fraud and more.

Google is taking a similar tactic, saying today that “Google Play’s service fee has never been simply a fee for payment processing — it reflects the value provided by Android and Play and supports our continued investments across Android and Google Play, allowing for the user and developer features that people count on,” a blog post states.

It says there will now be two fees that accompany External Offers program transactions:

An initial acquisition fee, which is 10% for in-app purchases or 5% for subscriptions for two years. Google says this fee represents the value that Play provided in facilitating the initial user acquisition through the Play Store.An ongoing services fee, which is 17% for in-app purchases or 7% for subscriptions. This reflects the “broader value Play provides users and developers, including ongoing services such as parental controls, security scanning, fraud prevention, and continuous app updates,” writes Google.

Of note, a developer can opt out of the ongoing services and corresponding fees, if the user agrees, after two years. Users who initially installed the app believe they’ll have services like parental controls, security scanning, fraud prevention and continuous app updates, which is why opting out requires user consent. Although Google allows the developer to terminate this fee, those ongoing services will no longer apply either. Developers, however, will still be responsible for reporting transactions involving those users who are continuing to receive Play Store services.

Image Credits: Google

Google today also shared more examples of how this fee structure would look, in action, and answered a series of general questions developers may have — like whether the program is opt-in or opt-out (it’s the former only), if it applies to games and apps alike (yes), whether developers can opt-in only some of their apps (yes) and other technical integration details. It said that developers would have to register for the program as a business, not as an individual. The company noted, too, that developers can continue to use  Google Play’s billing system while also participating in the external offers program.

Separately from the External Offers program, Google also this week launched two other programs to allow alternative billing systems for in-app purchases. And these are expanding this week to all developers whose apps reach EEA users.