>Who's to say random routing doesn't qualify as "intelligent"?

Heroku themselves!

Again, they changed their documentation.

You mean..they changed their marketing speak. Suing because buzzwords don't work the way you think they should isn't a very good basis for a lawsuit.

>You mean..they changed their marketing speak.

Marketing speak is not allowed to be misleading or flatly untrue (as it was in Heroku's case). This can and has been the basis of successful lawsuits.

I don't know how "intelligent routing" can be defined to mean anything. It can be interpreted a million different ways. This is probably one of the reasons why they used it in their marketing because it sounds cool and is a generic term that could be applied to anything.

I don't see much of anything in a lawsuit unless specific metrics related to SLA's that were agreed to were broken.

The documentation used to say that requests were routed to the next idle dyno, but the behaviour was silently changed to be random distribution, which is substantially worse for the customer. There seemed to be previous cases where Heroku were aware of the discrepancy but didn't act to fix it.

That's generally considered uncool.