The approach they use is very common in subscription services and completely legal. Customers accept this. It's been common practice at the subscription services firms I worked for. Lawyers are not going to "end up owning SalesForce." Here is the pertinent clause from the SFDC Acceptable Use and External-Facing Services Policy.
3. Changes to PolicyThat link takes you to the top-level SFDC page. You have to then sift through hundreds of documents to see what changed.SFDC may change this Policy by posting an updated version of the Policy at www.salesforce.com and such updates will be effective upon posting.
#50. Isn’t this still a form of “bait and switch” since at the time the customer bought the services etc, he was buying them for his specific work needs that the company advertised their programs would do?
By changing the policy in the middle of the night, without any customer input/comment, this would effectively nullify the original “intent” of the service the customer paid for.
In other words, Salesforce was perpetrating a “fraud” on the customer because I’m sure the service contracts had specified terms of “time” subscriptions and this new policy would interfere with that stated and contract signed condition.
Companies should do a class action fraud lawsuit for millions against Salesforce because by changing the rules of an existing contract in middle stream, it will cost the customers millions of dollars to replace what they had.
This is “fraud”, plan and simple. It also might be a criminal violation of FTC, FCC or other governmental regulatory bodies policies and laws.
Could this company, or any other, update their “policy” to deny service to black people who register to vote, or would that be considered a violation of constitutional rights?
Is the right to keep and bear arms a constitutional right?