I tried to block Adobe from automatically billing my account for a monthly fee, Adobe phone support said if I couldn't tell them the email that was billing my bank account, they wouldn't cancel it. I then told the bank to block further billing. Then the billing name started changing on my statement: Adobe -> Adobe Inc. -> Adobe Creative C -> Adobe Stock, so the "new name(s)" didn't get blocked. The bank eventually refunded a portion because I had called the first time. Wonder if the bank would have a claim against Adobe in addition to the FTC?
Can you confirm that all of these transactions were for the same amount, equal to your monthly payment when you were a subscriber? I get that they’re the bad guy, but I highly doubt they have intentionally developed systems to side-step blocks from payment processors. A compromised credit card is a much more likely explanation given your inability to provide the email address for the account and charges for multiple products.
I too doubt it's to sidestep blocks, but it could very much be a case of normal fallbacks.
E.g. if Adobe or a contractor uses one service to process payments, if that API fails they use another service, if that API fails they use another service.
And it shows up as a slightly different name in each case, because it was a different person registering each service, and the names don't need to be consistent anyways.
I set up categorization rules in my personal finance app Monarch and have discovered that exact names of charges vary quite a bit. Always the same two or three variations for a given company, but it might be six months of one, then six months of another, then back to the first...
Threatening to call my state AG and the AG of a company’s incorporating state for fraud has 100% always cut the bullshit and gotten me to rightful resolution when customer service gives me the runaround.
I’ve never had to make the calls. It’s a bluff but the cost of legal compliance to answer AG calls always outweighs the cost of rightful resolution.
they really know what they're doing don't they
I imagine the implementatioin of this as some executive saying "surely we can't get away with that" and then of course, them getting away with that
