A lot of services depend on individual usage staying in certain bounds, and which would rarely be exceeded by the typical, intended usage; but where the provider doesn't want to commit to a hard cap (cough ISPs, Github). These services would collapse if everyone started re-selling the good, because it vastly changes the use profile. The term "abuse" is understandable (if not always warranted).
But you're right: one individual seeing the movie more than once is not inherently "abusive", even in that sense. But reselling is, for sure: the typical user is not going to see a movie every day, and the MoviePass model is based on such a "gentlemen's agreement", where people won't go out of their way to use every day's ticket (except the rare oddball user).
As a way to root out actual abuse, they have to use some crude heuristics, and one of them is repeat movie viewings. Yes, some honest non-resellers see movies more than once, but the most common case is this kind of reselling.
Thing is, MoviePass subscribers aren't representative of the average movie-goer. It attracts those who see a lot of movies (repeat or not). It's also only a small percentage of viewers.
The problem is the corporate doublespeak (lies) in the the way they presented the change. It speaks volumes about the way the company is managed. I'd be looking elsewhere if I worked there. Especially considering that there is absolutely no reason to spin the change. Just call it what it is.
> ... whose astounding box-office performance is driven by repeat visits
I think you underestimate how often people will see the same movie.
Getting tickets for your friends for MoviePass is a whole separate issue (and clearly abuse). But is seeing the same movie more than once "abuse"? That's more debatable. But repeat viewings clearly happen.