Adobe Deactivates All Creative Cloud Accounts and Software in Venezuela Due to Trump Order

Adobe Deactivates All Creative Cloud Accounts and Software in Venezuela Due to Trump Order

Due to Executive Order 13884, issued by President Trump on August 5, Adobe has deactivated all Creative Cloud accounts in Venezuela (and consequently, all associated software) and will not be issuing refunds to any customers.

The executive order, titled "Blocking Property of the Government of Venezuela," was issued as a response to the continuing crisis involving the disputed Venezuelan presidential election of May 2018. As a result, the U.S. government has blocked almost all financial transactions and services between the U.S. and Venezuela. Consequently, Adobe has deactivated all Creative Cloud accounts in the country.

Adobe has emphasized that these actions are being taken solely to comply with the executive order. In addition, because of the order forbidding financial transactions, they are unable to issue refunds. Due to a lack of an expiration date on the order, Adobe's actions will continue indefinitely, with accounts of Venezuelan users scheduled to lose all access on October 28. As such, if you live in Venezuela, be sure to download any data you have on your account as soon as possible, as you will not be able to access it after the aforementioned date. 

You can read more on Adobe's page regarding the executive order.

Update (quote from Adobe): "We can confirm that Behance will continue to be accessible in Venezuela. And, customers who purchased directly from Adobe will be refunded by the end of the month. We are working with our partners on the same. We regret the difficulties this causes our customers. We will share more details about how our operations and customer activities might be impacted, as they become available."

Lead image by Gage Skidmore, used under Creative Commons.

Log in or register to post comments

52 Comments

Daniel Medley's picture

I don't know. Reading the EO, I don't see how it would relate to Adobe doing this.Unless Adobe has decided that all users of their products are part of the government or on a designated or banned persons list.

Nicolas KIEFFER's picture

Not sure it is really a disaster for photographers.

It can even be a bless as there exist better software than Adobe catalogue.

But all this crap just tell us how all that american cloud SaaS can be a big problem for the rest of the world !
Just having a mad guy at the top of the USA and your local or world wide business can be shut down in less than a few clicks... Frightening how too much power is given to such corporates

Way to punish the people adobe, why not just offer it for free in Venezuela so people that are already suffering already aren't also being robbed by a billion dollar corporation.

interesting idea, and would build loyalty so that when the time comes people will stay with Adobe. As is someone else is going to make a killing.

Motti Bembaron's picture

Stupid. very stupid. What the world is slowly seeing is a nation that can not be trusted. A nation that jumps to attention when the president says 'jump' is a nation with eroding democracy.

In a normal democracy, a president has to have the parliament agreement on such issues and the parliament still can be challenged by the courts.

Does it make any sense to screw over regular people that go about their business? Is it even legal? So a US company can just stop supplying what they were paid for and not issue refunds? I guess the answer in the US corporate world is "who cares".

In the past three years, America is slowly showing its ugly face. reneging on agreements, insulting head of states and refusing to do business with other nations on a word from the president.

You can blame the president but he is not acting alone. It seems businesses are all too happy to exercise their monopoly muscles.

It becomes increasingly clear that US corporations are not to be dependent on.

David Pavlich's picture

Just to clear up a couple of things, the US is a Representative Republic, not a democracy...big difference. Second, the revolution of 1776 and beyond was to rid the colonies of the 'King and country' and most of the baggage that came along with said, including the parliamentary system of governing.

If you've read any news over the last few years, you will note that the US courts, have, indeed, ruled on Trump's executive orders, stopping or delaying many of them and upholding a few.

Just wanted to make sure that you had the correct information.

Gion-Andri Derungs's picture

Outch... And what's your federal republic is based on? Autocracy? Oligarchy?.... Or is it just democracy?

And don't try to tell me I have no clue what a federal republic is. I live in one of the oldest...

Daniel Medley's picture

"And what's your federal republic is based on? Autocracy? Oligarchy?.... Or is it just democracy?"

Quick answer is, none of the above.

Gion-Andri Derungs's picture

Enlighten me... I'd like to laugh...

But hey, maybe you are right! Let's say the US as a "broken democracy"... I can fully agree to that.

Daniel Medley's picture

You do realize that there is a difference between a representative republic and "just a democracy," right? I'm not going to get all side-railed with attempting to explain it to you, but ...

Just saying.

David Pavlich's picture

It's not a Federal Republic, it's a Representative Republic. Here's the simple breakdown: House of Representatives are people that represent a portion of a state. The senate is the state's advocate, although this has been ruined by the 17th Amendment, and the president represents the country.

As an aside, the 17th Amendment changed the way senators acquired their position. Prior to the 17th, senators were appointed by the governor which meant that the senators were more than likely in agreement with the state's governor and would advocate for the governor's position.

Then the 17th is when senators were elected and that means that the senators become advocates for the party, not the state. The 17th needs to be abolished.

Gion-Andri Derungs's picture

"It's not a Federal Republic, it's a Representative Republic" Right, that's why the US don't have Federal Law, right? Oh, and the Congressmen are not elected by a democratic process.

Gosh I'm beginning to understand, why the democratic system in the US is considered broken.

"Common definitions of the terms democracy and republic often feature overlapping concerns, suggesting that many democracies function as republics, and many republics operate on democratic principles, as shown by these definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary:

Republic: "A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives..."[1]
Democracy: "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."[2]
Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law notes that the United States exemplifies the varied nature of a constitutional republic—a country where some decisions (often local) are made by direct democratic processes, while others (often federal) are made by democratically elected representatives.[3] As with many large systems, US governance is incompletely described by any single term. It also employs the concept, for instance, of a constitutional democracy in which a court system is involved in matters of jurisprudence.[3]

As with other democracies, not all persons in a democratic republic are necessarily citizens, and not all citizens are necessarily entitled to vote.[4] Suffrage is commonly restricted by criteria such as voting age.[5]" (Source Wikipedia)

David Pavlich's picture

There are democratic principles involved, but it's not a Democracy. In the federal realm, the people are represented by their local House rep, the states are represented by their senators (although that is how it's supposed to be, it's not due to the 17th amendment) and the country is represented by the president. That is the basis. Picking nits won't change the basic structure.

Motti Bembaron's picture

Meanwhile, turn o the TV on American networks and you are "the more democratic nation on Earth"

Your president still is able to execute orders that would never be allowed in a democracy.

David Pavlich's picture

The press and most people that live in the states are either unaware or it is easier to say 'democracy' than 'representative republic'.

And if you've watched prior to the Trump administration, you will have noticed that the previous presidents have used executive orders to bypass Congress. It's the law of the land.

Motti Bembaron's picture

I am not suggesting that he (Trump) is the only one, I am aware that it is the law of the land and that is my point.

David Pavlich's picture

And that's how the government in the states works. There has yet to be a perfect form of government and as long as there is freedom of thought, there will never be a perfect form of government.

Motti Bembaron's picture

Yes, that is true enough.

Jaran Gaarder Heggen's picture

The closest you come might be Switzerland...

Just remember that there are actually places outside the US that function a lot better than USA, and we are even allowed to say what we want (mostly)!

Jim Bolen's picture

Imagine what it's like for those of us who live here and hate this shit.

Gion-Andri Derungs's picture

"In a normal democracy, a president has to have the parliament agreement on such issues"

Then he has to do politics. That means he cannot rule like an Dictator anymore. Like the others he so admires...

Ed Sanford's picture

First of all, the U.S. is a Constitutional Republic. With respect to executive orders, the congress was the entity that gave the President the power to issue executive orders. They did that ostensibly to give the President the ability to execute their responsibilities in carrying out congresses wishes. Moreover, it was done to quickly address immediate problems during exigencies circumstances. Nobody complained when Obama issued tons of EOs. In fact, Trump rescinded many of those orders. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the king of executive power. In fact, FDR created the administrative agencies that gave more power to the executive branch. He did so with congressional approval. Where we find ourselves is because of history. There is nothing broken in our republic. People who lost an election like to say that. However, no President can serve beyond eight years.

Gion-Andri Derungs's picture

That's not our point. The whole principle of EO is questionable.

I'm aware that Obama issued EO, 276 in total. It was probalby the only way to get something done, with both chambers GOP. Trump already issued 128 in almost 3 years. 55 EO alone in his first year, when the GOP had both chambers....

I am also aware that a President can only serve two terms. The 22nd Amendment was ratified in the early 1950s...

Ed Sanford's picture

"The whole principle of EO is questionable." Fundamentally I agree with that point. I find it interesting that you say that when BO issued them it was way to get things done. By the way, BO had both houses in his first two years, and he mortgaged all on healthcare. He lost the house in 2010 and then the Senate in 2012. Why? Because significant numbers of voters did not like what he was doing. In Trump's case, he had a strong house, but a slim majority in the Senate. Therefore, as Barack Obama, he issued executive orders to get things done. If you have a leader you like than it's OK. If you have one you don't like it's not OK.... That's my point. In either case, Congress gave up it's own authority. And we are where we are. Courts have blocked many executive orders of Presidents. For my money, the system works. The most elegant thing is that when power transfers in the U.S., it is done without a shot being fired. This is all the way back to the founding. While not perfect, it is the best the world has known..... Peace

Jaran Gaarder Heggen's picture

A bad President can do a shit ton of damage in 8 years, a Stupid President can actually start the WW3 in less than a day and let other countries do the damage control... if possible

Ed Sanford's picture

Despite it all, the U.S. remains strong.... I cannot thing of even one place that I would rather be... There is no WW3... Merrily we just roll along. There will always be those who are unhappy.

Jaran Gaarder Heggen's picture

Have you never visited Norway or Iceland or Switzerland ;-) ;-)

I don't think U.S. is as strong as it once was, and they claim to be today... If any of their creditors told them to pay of their dept, the country would go bankrupt...

I'm an Norwegian, looking at the U.S. from outside, and I don''t think its so bad that many will have it to be... if you just could do something about all your private owned guns (both legal and nonlegal) it would be great... because even though you are a lot of people living there, 60-70k domestic kills by leathal weapon a year is a few to many dead people...

Ed Sanford's picture

I have visited Iceland and enjoyed it immensely (photography). I would not want to live there because the weather and the people are a little cold for my liking. I am a gun owner and would never give up my right to own one. We don’t have a gun problem; we have a crime problem. The vast majority of gun owners have never pointed a gun at another human. Gun deaths are concentrated in our cities where most of them are acquired illegally and used in domestic disputes and drug crimes. By the way, your figures are inaccurate. It’s about 40,000 which is still too many. The real problems in these urban areas (I grew up in that environment) emanate from extreme liberalism and social engineering. I would agree that the US has overcharged its credit. However, the debts are being paid. So it is being called in. Ironically, most of that debt was incurred to fund social programs that many think were the right things to do even though they are outside of the Constitutional mandate. Regarding our strength, we are still the world’s largest consumer market,, and we still perform the world’s heaviest lifting militarily, medically, and support for disasters. We accomplish it all while changing our executive administrations ever 4 to 8 years without firing a shot.

Jaran Gaarder Heggen's picture

I don't have anything against people own a gun or 10... what I said was that its needs to get under control... or better control...
The number was of, but I think thats because the article I read that time did some wrong calculations, most likely they added both those that got killed and injured, because when I look at Brady, I see the numbers split...
https://www.bradyunited.org/key-statistics?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIyZ79muXO5QI...

The problems with all the heavy lifting of military is that most of the wars your soldiers need to fight in are fight by or started by people with US, RU, or Chinese weapons...

PS. I have nothing against Americans or the Country, I just see the effects of "free sale" of weapons and some of the politics from another place ... But at the same time, I know its not as bad as the media and opponents of the for any period sitting President wants it to appair...

The political system you have, can be another story... but in the big view it kinda work...
Atleast you know what the person you voke for actually stand for...

In Norway with its parliamentary democracy, we vote for a party, but as soon as they get into the "Stortinget" or in the Government, they do what ever they can to keep the power, often by make agreements that does not comfirm with the party's politic...

A lot of things are great in Norway, but there are a lot of things that could be a lot better to... so don't listen to everything thats been sais or wriitten about it... well... the country is great, the politics are not... lol...

But we do not have this problem: https://everytownresearch.org/reports/guns-intimate-partner-violence/

Hopefully the USA as a country will manage to take care of its people, thats the most important thing...

More comments