@Neta_Yardeni This is not a feature available at this time. Any user with editor access has the ability to invite users to the files they have access to and there isn’t a way to restrict sharing unless subscribed to an Organization or Enterprise plan.

That said, if a user has view access, they can only invite someone to view; they can’t invite them to be an editor.

However, as mentioned above: if a user has editor access, they can grant someone view, or edit access.

I’d suggest adding monthly reminders before the invoice date, to check the team’s editor count, so you can be sure you are only charged for the users that should have edit access

See this page for additional info: Share files and prototypes

@Neta_Yardeni I did a couple of things to your topic:

• I converted it to a “share an idea” one so that others can add +1 votes


• I added additional wording to your title to fit better for the request

+1 on Neta’s request. Restricting editor-inviting to Admins only is very important for organizations.

The current model is a very bad Admin experience. We have a lot of people in our company. A subset are designers, on teams with A LOT of non-designers. Here’s how it goes:

1. Hundreds of non-designers request edit access from a designer who’s not an admin.


2. The PMs and Engineers don’t realize they are making a financial request and the rank and file designers don’t know that they are granting a financial request. They think they are just allowing their teammates to collaborate on their designs.


3. Then Admins are put in BAD situations:
   
   3a. We might then see a HUGE Figma bill because most “editors” aren’t designers and don’t need edit access. We are responsible for that bill.
   
   3b. OR we have to play bad guy and remove edit access from people who maybe/probably don’t need it. Removing access rubs people the wrong way. It’s much better to not grant it in the first place.
   
   3c. Since we don’t have time to talk to hundreds of users to find out if they actually need editor access, Admins make mistakes. Admins shouldn’t have to be anal about checking & removing people regularly.

A setting to restrict “grant-editor” access to only Admins would fix all of this.

Totally agree with the issue with the previous posts. Vote + !

+1 Must have option, “Ask to edit” is visible to every viewer and it is time consuming to decline every time requests.

We are experiencing the exact same troubles here. The financial manager gets frustrated once a month because of unexpected licensing costs, and the department heads have to sort it out month after month. It feels like Figma is trying to make some extra cash with this process. This is a very bad aspect of their licensing model.

Its funny for a UI design program that see’s itself as a leader in the field how morally bankrupt you are at heart. The dark patterns in place around billing are unconciounable. The fact any team member can give edit access to someone or many someones and incur huge bills for the organisation are so obviously wrong, and youve been aware of it for well over a year makes me realise that this is part of the grift.

So another 3 months of huge bills before my accounting department asked for my quartlerly review and nearly a thousand dollars wasted.

Also the fact youre still charging per “team” rather than for the tool access has never sat well with me. But given the fact ive just wasted 1000$ on useless editors Im off to go download and install Penpot for my team instead. Fingers crossed ill be completely off in the next few months.

100% agree - this is a dark pattern and shouldn’t be allowed unless an admin approve the request to edit. Also the fact that when a user click on share the default is ‘Edit’ access is a dark pattern - it should be viewer as default, and if the user manually change it to EDIT then it should also prompt to warn them they will be adding a paid user.

This is one of the biggest security and privacy failure I have ever heard.

• The administrator has no possibility to grant or deny access
• No small notification via email or in the notifications section
• Something appears in the log, but it doesn’t show who sent the invitation

Good news, everyone!

You might have already noticed that we’ve recently updated Figma’s seats and billing experience. 

• One of the updates, a request we’ve heard from you and other members of the community, relates to seat upgrade and approval flows
• In summary, admins have now several seat approval settings to choose from:
  • Manually approve seats: All seat upgrade requests must be manually approved by an admin.
  • Manually approve, unless seat is available (default): People who request a paid seat are automatically granted one if it is available. A seat is available if it has been purchased in advance, but no one is assigned to it.
  • Auto-approve seats: All seat upgrade requests are automatically granted. If there are no seats available, a new seat will be purchased.

I am curious to understand whether you’ve had the chance to explore these new settings. How are you feeling about it? Do they address the pain-points listed in this topic? / What challenges are you (still) facing?

This solves one of the problems, but certainly not the fact that anyone with access to a file can invite someone to view it without administrator approval—even with an Organization license. This is truly, truly dangerous and inconceivable.