Unclear Figma billing practices

So shady that they get away with double-billing everybody, especially when independent designers don’t even realize it’s happening. Fingers crossed they face legal consequences real soon!

This x1000. Figma needs to face legal action over this.

This is a scam. Professionals around the world face the same situation and they are finding out outrageous invoices because of these dark practices. How many of you have upgraded your account thinking you will be able to edit files shared with you just to find out after paying that it doesn’t work like that? Figma is being unclear on purpose to make their double billing business.

I agree - terrible customer experience.

This, in my view, is a crazy and limiting model in a world where many people work outside of organisations - as consultants, coaches, advisors and the like.

Personally, I work with a variety of other people, in a variety of teams. Always have and always will. Sometimes as many as 6 teams at a time.

I already have a paid seat for FigJam and they are asking me to pay for a paid seat in every single team I am part of.

At least in Miro I can get a work around - from my paid seat I can share a board publicly but with a password.

I haven’t checked out Mural yet but I will. Because this, for me, is a deal breaker in renewing and also recommending FigJam.

Because as I work with multiple teams I also have the option of recommending a whiteboard solution to every team I work with!

Thanks for any suggestions.

I was such an advocate for Figma before I learned about this billing practice. I was literally singing its praises to peers, basically marketing the product for free. Now I don’t even think I’ll continue using the product. Disgusting.

It is a Dark Design pattern to base your billing system based on View Access as opposed to Edit Access.

Good design is opt out by default not opt in by default. When I send a view access request, good UX and System design means that the wording/text in the request benign sent should match the result of the action the user performs. The text “View access” is not the same “Edit Access”. I should not be charged for a design seat simply because I want a client to view a file.

This is an issue that has been reported/commented on numerous times by other end users. Why is this still an almost a year later? Are you hiring developers who are building features without flags?

+1 Figma please take a look at this. I’m happy to share editor with a client or outside collaborator if they request it, but I expect them to be prompted ot create their own paid account.

If I want to add a paid seat to my organisation for a new staff member, I’ll clearly go ahead and do that.

It’s something you should fix pretty urgently. It’s extremely bad. The product itself is great. This = terrible oversight. An urgent fix is required.

Figma billing practice is WAY WORSE than Adobe.

You pay for 1 soft, with files somewhere in a cloud, taxed every time you simply want to share with a client or a team member (OMG, pros do that?).
Sharing is a basic need for designers, not an extra feature.

I have a good idea for you Figma: what about charging us to save .fig files locally?
That’s a wonderfully greedy idea, isn’t it?
Pff.

This is some baloney. A paid account needs to pay per team worked on?

I find it disgusting that figma prompts users to try a full design seat without informing them there is a cost, this then triggers an email to the admin with only an approve button link in the email. This is a corrupt and horrible practice! I hate the product for this reason. SHAME ON YOU!~