[mst]

> Why not just start charging for the postgres db, and only delete if there's no active billing?

Probably because the original terms you agreed to were written not anticipating Salesforce perpetrating this and so while I would not at all be surprised if the vast majority of customers in your position would've been entirely happy with it they probably didn't have a legal path to do so.

[jfoster]

> they probably didn't have a legal path to do so.

That makes no sense. Most large companies change both agreements and prices via notification emails all the time. Probably even SalesForce does so.

[mst]

Given a Heroku employee showed up in a different subthread of this comment section saying thay wanted to change things but couldn't, in spite of a long discussion between the technical and legal sides trying to find a way to do so, it seems to me to be at least plausible that in this case for whatever reason that wasn't an option.

If you want to do a close read of the terms and conditions/contract language as of a reasonable guess as to when OP signed up and link the section you believe does give them the right to make such a change unilaterally, I'd be happy to read it and discuss further.

My current position in the mean time will, however, remain that while there's always a chance (often a pretty good one) that my hypothesis is wrong, claiming it makes no sense at all is a stronger claim than is justified by the information forming the basis of this discussion.