arXiv requires, at minimum, an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive license for arXiv.org to distribute the article (https://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-di

arXiv requires, at minimum, an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive license for arXiv.org to distribute the article (https://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/license.html https://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/license....). That is why their response largely revolves around the possibility that the submitter didn't have the right to grant the work under that license in the first place: if it was granted under that (or a more open, CC license), then there's no copyright-based legal reason why they would need to remove the work at the request of the submitter.