As Adobe, the developer behind Photoshop and Substance 3D, faces a legal battle with the US government over accusations of concealing crucial subscription and termination fee details in fine print, the law firm Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy has stepped in, offering assistance to individuals who believe they have been wronged by Adobe.

In case you missed out on all the legal drama surrounding the company, here’s a quick recap. Earlier this month, the Department of Justice filed a federal court complaint following a referral from the Federal Trade Commission, alleging that Adobe has been harming its users by enrolling them in its default subscription plan without clearly disclosing important terms regarding the cancellation process.

The lawsuit accuses Adobe of burying the key terms of its subscription plan “in fine print and behind optional textboxes and hyperlinks”, ensuring that most consumers are unlikely to notice or see them. Additionally, the FTC claims that subscribers who attempt to cancel via customer service encounter numerous obstacles that impede or delay the cancellation process.

As per CPM’s latest statement, the firm’s Thomas Loeser and Karin Swope are now actively investigating Adobe for employing “dark patterns and other deceptive practices” to mislead consumers into signing up for year-long subscriptions and concealing excessive termination fees to discourage cancellations.

Additionally, the team pledges to assist those personally affected by Adobe’s policies, noting that individuals who were “tricked into an Adobe subscription and pressured not to cancel by their hidden Early Termination Fee” may be entitled to compensation, likely indicating CPM’s willingness to build a class-action lawsuit against Adobe. You can read the full statement and fill out the Adobe Investigation form by clicking this link.

Although the lawsuit was filed only in mid-June, the controversy surrounding Adobe began earlier in the month, sparked by the community’s outrage over the company’s updated General Terms of Use, which effectively granted Adobe unlimited access to users’ projects.

The outrage intensified when people discovered section 4.2 of Adobe’s Terms of Service, which grants the company a royalty-free, sublicensable license to “use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, create derivative works based on, publicly perform, and translate” user creations.

The altercation was further amplified when a report revealed that even Adobe’s own staff is unhappy with the company and is criticizing the leadership for its “poor communication” and apparent mishandling of the Terms of Use debacle.