Regardless of whether this is legal or not, I think this move is subjectively scummy. I know that profit maximisation means going against common ideas of what is "a nice thing to do", but there's a line that's been crossed here between "the business has to support itself" and "trying to exploit and milk our customers".

Honestly, if storage costs were an issue, I would have preferred they delete it with notification than sell hope at a ransom.

Wonder if there any startups that have grown without resorting to these low blow tactics - just the idealised free market of "we provide such a good service that you're willing to pay us our fair price".

▲

swiftcoder 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I would have preferred they delete it

The fact that they did delete it, and then tried to sell access to bupkis, is just the icing on the scummy corporate cake, eh?

▲

echoangle 5 hours ago | parent [-]

From the story I was assuming that OP maybe had multiple accounts he forgot about or that he actually uploaded the images without logging in, and that’s why there were no images to be restored.

If the images actually were on the account and they deleted them, it would be crazy.

▲

lutr 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, that's exactly it! I must have had multiple accounts. I don't think they deleted any of my images.

	▲	swiftcoder 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

dspillett 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I think this move is subjectively scummy

I'd argue that it is objectively scummy.