It's a fair question. In situations involving formal legal demands and regulatory complaints, executive silence on social channels isn't unusual—it's a deliberate risk-mitigation strategy.
Engaging publicly or via direct message can create evidence and escalate visibility. The standard playbook is to keep serious disputes within formal, trackable channels (like legal@ email) or through counsel.
My takeaway isn't about their silence on LinkedIn, but their continued silence across all formal channels after being served notice. That shifts the calculus from a support issue to a legal and reputational risk they are choosing to ignore
. TOS Cannot Legalize Negligence: No terms of service can shield a company from liability for its own gross negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, or failure to deliver the core service paid for. These are well-established exceptions to limitation of liability clauses.
2. Their Breach is the Issue: This isn't about a bug or downtime. It's about their platform making unauthorized, destructive changes that consumed all prepaid resources and delivered a fundamentally broken product—a clear breach of the core service agreement itself.
3. The Real Legal Question: The question isn't if I read the TOS. It's whether their TOS can legally excuse systematically destroying a customer's project and then ignoring it. I'm comfortable letting the FTC, the CA Attorney General, and potentially a court answer that."
Engaging publicly or via direct message can create evidence and escalate visibility. The standard playbook is to keep serious disputes within formal, trackable channels (like legal@ email) or through counsel.
My takeaway isn't about their silence on LinkedIn, but their continued silence across all formal channels after being served notice. That shifts the calculus from a support issue to a legal and reputational risk they are choosing to ignore