Those of us under 30 never knew them either.

And most never will. The ones left are awful and full of restrictions, and can be taken away at any time for any reason, even if it's illegal in your state.

>This is the same image they used for their 2018 April Fools prank and faked a domain seizure.

The FBI is seizing domains for April Fools Day pranks? Does anyone else think that's an overreach?

I think they mean the website put up a fake seizure notice.

It actually is not the same image that was used in the April Fools prank. I believe this is either a legitimate seizure, or someone hacked the site. It is far more likely that this is an actual seizure, as their means of contact are all down and their Twitter account is silent.

Doesn't this open Nandini Jammi up to a Tortious interference lawsuit?

Sounds like Stefan and Mailchimp had a business arrangement and she's now a third party interfering with it (and bragging on twitter).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference

I can't imagine a situation where MailChimp is legally prevented from enforcing its own terms of use just because a third party pointed out the breach. Think of how exploitable that loophole would be.

I can't imagine that either, but this isn't a case between Stefan and Mailchimp, this is a case between Stefan and Nandini in Tort Court where the requirements are much lower:

1. The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties. Stefan is on mailchimp

2. Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.

3. Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship. Tweet: https://twitter.com/nandoodles/status/1216903968439357446

4. Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach. This is on Mailchimp's TOS

5. The contractual relationship is breached. Tweet: https://twitter.com/Mailchimp/status/1217073200414306304

6. Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs. This remains to be seen

You are inappropriately equating the termination of a contract with a breach (= a violation) of the contract. The Mailchimp terms of service allow the company to terminate the contractual relationship at any time [1] -- they did not breach the contract by choosing to terminate it.

[1]: https://mailchimp.com/legal/terms/ -- "3. Closing Your Account: You or Mailchimp may terminate the Agreement at any time and for any reason by terminating your Mailchimp account or giving notice to the other party."

Good catch. Mailchimp has better coverage in their TOS than most I've looked at.

Better? Not unusually so. Unconditional termination clauses are standard practice; most terms of service will include something to that effect.

> I can't imagine that either, but this isn't a case between Stefan and Mailchimp, this is a case between Stefan and Nandini in Tort Court

Well, it's not a case at all, and it's not likely to be one.

> Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.

Terminating a contract as provided for in the contract is not a breach of the contract. The only arguable breach is on Molyneux’s part by violating the ToS, and clearly Nandini didn't induce that breach.

SM breached the contract himself when he violated the ToS.

> True, but then it's on MailChimp to prove it.

No, it's not, unless they want damages or some other government-imposed remedy.

Why not? It’s so clear cut it’d be a slam dunk for MailChimp.

Location: Oakland, Ca

Remote: Yes, Please!

Willing to Relocate: No

Technologies: General ML & Data Science; Python, SciKit Learn, Keras, SQL, MongoDB, Flask; NLP tools like BERT, WordPiece, etc. ; AWS; Enough DevOps to run an ML pipeline

Resume: On Request

Email: bn.rn.99@gmail.com