Vista Social claims that removing twitter/x posting from the LTD is justified due to a sudden increase in API cost. This is untrue, and every AS user who purchased plans that included this feature should be entitled to a refund. Here are the facts:

A month ago, X.com announced that they would be changing their terms specifically for enterprise users already paying $42k a year, to include a share of their revenue (source: https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-x-twitter-api-revenue-share-model-change).

The last API rate hike affected the three basic tiers from last year; it is highly unlikely these are the plans Vista Social was using, based on their own statements in their recent email. ( source: https://dataconomy.com/2024/10/30/x-api-pricing-increase/)

They claim the free API plan is no longer available. This is untrue. The free API plan is still available (source: https://docs.x.com/x-api/introduction). Beyond that, VS would never have been able to use the API for free unless their users cumulatively posted less than 500 posts per month. Then, in the course of a month or two, usage skyrocketed to over 300k posts per month. Which is highly unlikely.

There are only three scenarios where these actions make sense:
-They had been using the pro plan and, due to the growth of the platform, they are being required to upgrade to an enterprise plan

-They are already on an enterprise plan and don't want to give up additional revenue.

-Their financial picture is bleak, they are on the verge of failing, and this cut was needed to try to save the company.

None of these scenarios, nor any scenario short of the business shutting down, is an acceptable reason to not honor the agreement with LTD holders.

If they can't afford the bill, fine. But then they should allow users to add their own API key so that, as individuals, we can use the xAPI free account (in most cases) and not be required to make additional purchases at marked-up rates for features we already paid for.

If they are not willing to let users BYOK, honor the existing agreement, or at least be truthful in their reasoning and offer some kind of increased value for the increased expense, I see no reason why AS should defend this behavior as justified.