I had to think about it for a second. You're meant to read it like "killing something is bad, but contracts are bad, so killing a contract is good."
Although it'd be perfectly valid to use "contract" as a metonym for "service" or "account", people don't tend to; the contract is just the evil thing binding you to pay for your account, and doesn't get mentally associated (by most consumers) with the service itself. So killing a contract is wholly good.
But forcing people to go through a thought-process like this to figure out what is meant is bad "communications-design UX", and the editor could probably have come up with something clearer.
People are not forced to go through any thought process. Most people will take it at face value (as I did) and assume that service was cancelled for having the gall to email the CEO. I clicked through only because I have had good experience with T-mobile customer service and was surprised to see something like this. So the misleading/ambiguous headline actually got me to read the article where an accurate headline wouldn't have.
Although it'd be perfectly valid to use "contract" as a metonym for "service" or "account", people don't tend to; the contract is just the evil thing binding you to pay for your account, and doesn't get mentally associated (by most consumers) with the service itself. So killing a contract is wholly good.
But forcing people to go through a thought-process like this to figure out what is meant is bad "communications-design UX", and the editor could probably have come up with something clearer.