At what point does it make sense to sue these companies to compel them to answer these questions? I know, that's expensive... but I'm willing to contribute to a legal fund to make payment processors answer questions.
Corporations that provide critical services that would otherwise be hard to find elsewhere (Stripe, perhaps) use these legal threats to completely shut their customers out of their closed ecosystems. If you hold them to account, you pay a stiff penalty on the other end being denied access to the services they monopolize. And you are very likely compelled to operate using their arbitration schemes and you will have no path to swift action. I don't know how to get around this and it remains the primary reason I walk away from companies that operate terribly with their customers (I see you, AirBnB -- https://www.airbnbhell.com/), but who provide services that I sometimes really need. I'd love to understand from a lawyer what REAL paths customers have to finding swift and fair (I should lose sometimes too!) justice without an extra-judicial penalty put down by a company operating a semi-monopoly.
Usually you would start with a “lawyer letter” and hope it adds some urgency to resolving your issue. Those are way faster and cheaper than actually filing suit.
I'm not sure if suing is a reasonable way to go - suing would work if there's a legal right to continued service or "answers" but IMHO there is not, technically for such B2B deals Stripe has the legal right to say "you haven't broken any explicit restriction or terms of service, but we simply decided to terminate the contract because we didn't like your business" or "we threw a bunch of dice and arbitrarily chose to".
