The Dark UX Pattern in Figma's Seat Management: A Rant from a Frustrated Pro User

As a dedicated pro user of Figma, the frustrations I’ve faced with its seat management system are becoming unbearable.

Each month, my company—essentially a one-person operation—experiences a surprise increase in charges due to an infuriating UX pattern that feels both deceptive and exploitative.

Figma’s pricing model and seat management system are, at best, opaque and, at worst, a textbook case of dark UX design.

Here’s the issue: I frequently need to collaborate with clients and stakeholders who are also paying users.

To streamline the process, I often grant them access to edit files.

However, this seemingly innocuous action triggers additional charges for new seats—seats I neither need nor want. I’ve adjusted my file sharing settings to mitigate this problem, but the charges persist.

Every month, I’m billed for extra seats despite being on a yearly plan.

This practice is especially egregious given that my operation is singular.

The additional seats are not justifiable, and Figma’s lack of transparency in this process is maddening.

Here’s where Figma’s model falls apart: the platform is designed to trap users into paying for additional seats without clear, upfront warnings.

When you approve a user for edit access, it’s as if you’re automatically agreeing to an extra charge.

The platform’s failure to alert users in real-time or require confirmation before adding a paid seat exemplifies a dark UX pattern.

Users are left to grapple with surprise expenses, which leads to a cycle of frustration and financial strain.

Figma’s support, while responsive, cannot fully alleviate the financial damage done by this flawed system.

Every month, I’m forced to request refunds for unauthorised charges—a tedious process that only partially addresses the underlying issue.

The true problem lies in Figma’s design itself, which is engineered to maximise revenue at the expense of my satisfaction.

To mitigate this, I’ve had to adapt by having clients create their own accounts or even by offloading deliverables to their accounts.

While this workaround is somewhat effective, it’s hardly ideal and shifts the burden of managing access and costs onto the clients. The solution is straightforward but requires Figma to rethink its approach.

Instead of defaulting to editable access and leaving users to clean up the mess, Figma should offer clear warnings before adding paid seats and provide a straightforward way to control access roles.

Until then, users will continue to face unexpected costs and frustrations, feeding into a business model that profits from its own lack of transparency.

In the end, Figma’s current practices reflect a broader issue in the tech industry where user experience often takes a backseat to revenue generation.

As long as this dark pattern persists, Figma risks alienating its user base and undermining trust in its platform.