It's most likely the last option.

Enforcing their terms against one client and not another doesn't mean they are greenlighting the other client. It just means they haven't gotten around to it. It's a fallacy to assume otherwise.

I never claimed any assumptions, just listed the set of possible things which could be true. Each of them, if true, have their problems.

It's also entirely AWS' prerogative to decide when, on whom, and how to enforce their TOS. They reserve their rights ahead of time.

I see. So the fourth option which I omitted is that this a selective action that is inconsistent with their general behavior. I did so because I assume good faith on their part, but it sounds like you may disagree that is the case.