[edmundsauto]

IANAL, but if I make a tool whose purpose is to violate the FB ToS, I could be liable under torturious interference (I think that's what it's called). Basically, I can't make money off of things that violate other people's contracts.

[Reelin]

I think tortious interference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference) requires having the specific intention of causing the violation to occur. Not just that one party happened to be motivated to break contract because of something you did but rather that your actions were motivated by specifically trying to get them to break the contract in and of itself.

[beagle3]

Do you know which jurisdictions have a precedent of ToS being considered a contract?

Being a one-sided, no negotiation and with no "meeting of minds", most European jurisdictions won't consider this a contract -- facebook can kick any user out, but it is unlikely they could recover damages from anyone (or have standing). At least that's my impression -- though US courts, especially in states that have UCITA or similar, are more likely to consider this a contract.

edit: I've found two jurisdictions, and both of them require proof of actual economic harm for standing (among many other things). I'll wait for more specific details about Facebook's approache.....

[Reelin]

In the US at least, yes, but it varies based on the specific situation. (https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/13549/)