The Figma class action lawsuit centers on design decisions about default settings, not copyright infringement. It alleges Figma enabled model training on customer design files by default, contradicting prior promises. While the legal case is undecided, Figma disputes the allegations and claims its training focuses on general patterns, not customer content. The core issue is that a choice was made regarding opt-in versus opt-out settings, varying by plan tier. Designers, as users, understand having defaults decided for them, and companies like Figma, in positions of influence, should uphold higher standards. This pattern of companies quietly changing terms to include user data in AI training, with opt-out mechanisms that are difficult or require specific, non-obvious actions, has repeated across Zoom, Slack, and Adobe. These companies often face backlash, issue clarifications, and sometimes reverse their decisions, highlighting that trust is built on auditable defaults, not just stated behavior. Figma's situation is unique because its tiered defaults were clearly announced and defended, with no reversal. A "sniff test" with four questions—Consent, Symmetry, Disclosure, and Exit—can evaluate a tool's approach. Consent is tested by whether the default setting was off upon arrival. Symmetry examines if defaults are applied equally or split based on payment tiers, which can reveal a bias in who is protected. Disclosure assesses if a designer performing their job would discover the settings without external notification. The lawsuit’s plaintiff alleges a gap between Figma's assurances and its actual practices regarding user data for AI training.