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. They're definitely open to arbitration. I wouldn't want to be in that position.

> 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.