that's certainly not the case for office365, for example. https://www.microsoft.com/online/mosa/MOSA2014Agr(NA)(ENG)(N... . same with gsuite. https://gsuite.google.com/intl/en_in/terms/2013/1/premier_te...
>and I'd certainly never want to run a service that didn't have this in its terms.
that may make sense if it was for a free trial, or it was for a cat sharing app, but I certainly would not want my business to be dependent on a service that can be yanked away from me at any time.
> Other than the last clause about "without providing any refund", I would expect this from any service provider, and I'd certainly never want to run a service that didn't have this in its terms.
You expect from any service that they can cancel your account for any reason ?!? We must not have the same set of requirements. Anyway the point is not relevant anymore as they have changed the TOS (it's much better now).
Yes, absolutely. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." I expect to be able to do that for any service I run, and I expect others to be able to do the same.
I also expect that doing so lightly, without a very well-justified reason, would get reported on and lead to a massive backlash. So, in practice, I expect such a clause to be used as, effectively, 'if you try to find a "creative" way to weasel your way out of our specific terms like "don't be disruptive, don't spam, etc", such that your activity meets the letter of the ToS but not the spirit, we'll kick you off anyway". Personally, if I were writing a ToS, I'd write the relevant term along those lines instead.
Other than the last clause about "without providing any refund", I would expect this from any service provider, and I'd certainly never want to run a service that didn't have this in its terms.
I do agree that the disclosure terms are more permissive than they should be.