It's their service, they're bearing the weight of being your "straw person," they can do what they want. I see nothing wrong with them writing their terms of service to reflect their values, and conveying them it in a cheeky manner like this.
these clauses are pretty common for this type of contract. it allows the service provider to not have to worry about whether or not their contract allows them to kick an abusive customer off their platform.
Incidentally, this is what I found in the terms of service for a certain popular website. I alerted them to it, and they are looking into rewording it to be less absurd.
It's justified in being called simple if companies are actually doing this.
I did find HubSpot[1]:
> We may limit or deny your access to support if we determine, in our reasonable discretion, that you are acting, or have acted, in a way that results or has resulted in misuse of support or abuse of HubSpot representatives.
I'm still skeptical because actually enforcing that clause seems like it could lead to an expensive lawsuit. The angriest customers are naturally the most litigious ones, too.
That's reasonable enough. I think when there are contracts people actually want to use, no one will be turned away by the small chance that the entire ecosystem will maliciously alter that contract.
Whether they don't right this second doesn't matter. Their terms of service say they can. If they decided it was unthinkable that they would ever do this, they could have written their TOS to be less overreaching. But they didn't do that. Therefore they think it's a possibility (if in fact they are not already doing it. Are you so sure? How do you know?)
You can just read the terms and choose whether or not to pay for the service. Unless they're omitting these things from their terms, I don't see the problem. They're telling you what you can do, and you're choosing whether to pay for it.
But the over-lawyer-ification and impracticality of opting out of corporate terms of service is an widespread problem. This is an interesting expansion of that problem, so it deserves highlighting.
reply