When you have a headline that does not say what the actual topic is, and you are forced to click the article to find out the topic, that is called "clickbait".
In their defense (both OP and HubSpot) the original is written to customers already aware of the context, and HackerNews asks submitters not to editorialize by default.
It's not immediately more enlightening if you do click through either, except in the most general terms - some issue with changes to their Ts & Cs is alluded to in the first paragraph, and then there's a wall of text that probably does explain in more detail but simply didn't look like it was going to be interesting enough to bother reading.
And maybe that's the point: having just annoyed their customers, whilst they do need to communicate with and apologise to those customers - clearly the intended audience here - perhaps they don't want to kick up a massive fuss that lands on the front page of HN and other sites, and sparks a big discussion or controversy.
> When you have a headline that does not say what the actual topic is, and you are forced to click the article to find out the topic, that is called "clickbait".
I don't think it's clickbait, but it's still a poor article to link. It's a mea culpa about some kind of controversy, but that controversy isn't described in detail and you're assumed to already know what's going on.
It sounds like some TOS change about a "data enrichment" feature, but I have no idea what the issue was with that? Maybe training on that data or having data leak across customers?