[mst]

It feels like it would've been better to have written things such that if it's attached to a still active account that's paying for other services things would be permitted to work a bit differently, but of course the relevant clauses will have been written long before anybody anticipated a new owner deciding to turn a bunch of things off, so under the circumstances at the time of writing it's unsurprising and not really the authors' fault that they didn't consider that.

I had a vague thought for a moment about maybe being able to give customers the option to opt in to an updated set of terms that would've been better designed for the situation ... but since the original Tell HN author didn't get any emails about this at all, presumably they wouldn't've got that one either so even if (and given 'vague thought' I'm not claiming any particular level of 'good idea' to it) that had been done it presumably wouldn't've helped them anyway.

It seems to me the root problem here isn't so much the compliance initiated policies as a complete failure to take 'make sure people have been adequately warned' sufficiently seriously given the potential consequences.

Deeply unfortunate.

(read that last sentence in understated deadpan dry en_UK to get an appropriate read on just how impressed I'm not by the communications cockup)