[BenjaminBunny]

I got it as well, came via an aws account.

I filled in a support request with browser stack.

Seems very odd, angry ex member of staff maybe??

[spiralganglion → BenjaminBunny]

That was my immediate thought. This really does have the tone of a disgruntled (ex-)employee.

Edit: I just double-checked. Previous support@ emails were not sent via AmazonSES. This one was.

[rver → spiralganglion]

Their previous marketing mails were send using Amazon SES. Just like this one successfully signed with DKIM. Looks like the hacker had access to their Amazon SES credentials.

[gantengx → BenjaminBunny]

Yeah, looks like angry ex-employee(s)...

[nodesocket → gantengx]

Seriously, how could ex-employees be so ignorant though? They are going to get taken to court, and rightfully so.

[jamesaguilar → nodesocket]

IANAL, but I'm at least curious whether they'd be willing to take someone to court when the discovery process would likely involve documenting claims of false advertising. Whistleblower laws might also apply. Will be fascinating to watch.

[codeN → jamesaguilar]

I don't think in India, where Browserstack is based, Whistleblower laws are that strong, the false claims could often be masked as a "flaw" and a bug rather than by design, and hence not sure how it plays out, but I think from the looks of it, if it is an ex-employee, that person is at a riskier position.

[ZoF → gantengx]

Curious as to how you're determining that...?