This took me less than 5 min to do and here's Adobe's address because the FTC does ask for it:
Adobe
345 Park Avenue
San Jose, CA 95110-2704
Tel: 408-536-6000
Fax: 408-537-6000
I remember the FTC's website also said something to the effect of they don't deal with individual claims but they add it to a database against that company. So if enough of us file complaints, they'll have to look into it.
The second sentence is important as it clarifies the purpose of it - pretty much every company which has hosting etc puts in a clause like this to avoid micro-contract disputes over "show me the clause where you have the right to share my content when I hit share"
Thats what I originally thought too. But Ive seen a couple outlets reporting on it like the appleinsider article. So there might be more to it. They also have been caught in lies regarding Firefly AI and cancelling is a nightmare so they could use a regulatory check up. I
Oh yeah I'm sure there's hinky shit going on with a capital HINKY. But that particular clause is unremarkable and likely to be dismissed by a regulatory body.
I look forward to NDA investigations from a major studios because a wholy embargoed project's concept art appears in AI art.
The problem is that the language is too broad, and they need to narrow it to legitimate use cases.
There was a similar issue with Findaway Voices earlier this year, and outrage/business loss made them change it.
writerbeware.blog/2024/02/19/o...
But the FTC might be more interested in the fact that they gated access to the billing and account website on approval of the terms and charged an early cancellation fee to users who have been denied access to the product.
The wording is pretty standard at this point, but we have reached a point with saturation of these kinds of things where IMO they should be providing more clarification for the people who didn't spend 6 months studying Contract Law and other End User Agreements.
The billing stuff is very hinky and yeah, likely to get them a major slap from various regulators in multiple countries for unfair dealing etc.
And that's also bad for them as it'll be used against them in a ToS disagreement, it's very messy for everyone in general.
One conforming example does not preclude other much more complex or objectionable uses. Not a lawyer but "for example the share button" seems like a misdirect without much heft.
Not a lawyer, but am a law student and did pass contract law. Things like illustrative examples, funny little comments, accompanying correspondence, etc can all be considered part of a contract and the modern approach is you cannot count on ye olde sly loophole, etc.
There are some amazingly long and tedious to read judgments which are such because they judges go over all the possible interpretations of wording, discuss what would be understood objectively, subjectively, what is in line with natural justice, public policy etc
I dont know, Im usually hesitant to share this stuff cuz I ain't no lawyer or anything but Ive seen reporting on it so I dont think its boiler plate legal language. And cancelling is 100% difficult so that alone is worth a complaint
