FTC pushes on subscription friction
U.S. consumer enforcement is targeting billing and cancellation practices: commentary frames Adobe's recent FTC settlement over difficult cancellation mechanics as a warning, while StubHub agreed to a $10m refund settlement for allegedly hiding mandatory fees. Regulators appear focused on interface design that obscures cost or traps users. (paymentweek.com) (nationaltoday.com)
The Federal Trade Commission is going after a very specific kind of trick: showing one price on the way in, then making people discover the real cost or the real exit only after they are committed. On April 9, 2026, the agency said StubHub will fund $10 million in refunds over ticket listings that allegedly left out mandatory fees in early price displays. (ftc.gov) The StubHub case was not about a tiny disclosure buried in legal text. The Federal Trade Commission said the company failed to show the total ticket price, including mandatory fees, in the first three pricing displays on its site after the agency’s fee rule took effect on May 12, 2025. (ftc.gov) That fee rule is blunt. It says a live-event ticket seller cannot advertise a partial price first and then fix it later with add-on charges, because the first low number already shapes the buyer’s decision. (ftc.gov) The agency had warned StubHub almost a year earlier, on May 14, 2025, that its site appeared to be omitting mandatory charges such as service fees and fulfillment fees. The warning letter even noted the National Football League schedule release that night, when ticket traffic was expected to spike. (ftc.gov) Adobe sits on the other side of the same pattern. In June 2024, the Federal Trade Commission accused Adobe of pushing customers into its “annual paid monthly” plan, showing the monthly number up front while obscuring an early termination fee equal to 50 percent of the payments left in the first year. (ftc.gov) The cancellation path mattered as much as the fee. The complaint said Adobe users faced hurdles when they tried to leave, and the agency described the company’s setup as trapping customers in year-long subscriptions through hidden fees and cancellation roadblocks. (ftc.gov) As of the Federal Trade Commission’s case page last updated on July 25, 2024, the Adobe matter was still listed as pending in federal court in Northern California. Trade commentary published on April 10, 2026, described a more recent Adobe settlement, but the official Federal Trade Commission materials surfaced in this search still center on the 2024 complaint rather than a new press release announcing final terms. (ftc.gov) (paymentweek.com) Put the two cases together and the target becomes clear. Regulators are not just policing what a company charges; they are policing the screen flow that decides what a customer notices, when they notice it, and how hard it is to back out. (ftc.gov 1) (ftc.gov 2) That is why ticketing and subscriptions now look like the same enforcement story. A hidden fee and a hidden cancel button do the same job: they turn confusion into revenue. (ftc.gov 1) (ftc.gov 2) For companies that live on recurring billing, the old playbook was to make leaving feel like canceling a gym membership in 1998. The Federal Trade Commission is signaling that if the real price is hidden at checkout or the real exit is hidden in the account menu, that design choice can now end in court, refunds, or both. (ftc.gov 1) (ftc.gov 2)
