> It is part of the user agreement you're required to sign in exchange for being allowed to use their service
I don't think such stuff flies in other jurisdictions than the US. Under civil law (ie Europe), what the law dictates defines what you can and cannot do. And contractual agreements can't override that. I very much think that that agreement is not applicable in Europe.
Interesting - I don't see this as legally different to a bank charging overdraft fees, or a credit provider charging late fees, which I presume are possible in Europe?
> Interesting - I don't see this as legally different to a bank charging overdraft fees, or a credit provider charging late fees, which I presume are possible in Europe?
Neither of those involve any kind of arbitrary decision related to speech by the bank.
The core of the matter is in the difference in between the civil law (descends from Napoleonic code) and common law (descends from Anglosaxon medieval common law):
In civil law, the contracts in between parties cannot override the law in any way. So if the law says that you cannot do any such thing like fining a customer based on what the person says (literally there is no law that allows that), then Paypal putting a clause in an agreement in between Paypal and the user does not mean sht. The law is the law. It does not allow such discriminatory behavior and it will not happen.
In common law, everything is a mess: Laws, statutes, precedents, interpretations, all enter the stage and make it a matter of whose coffers being more deep. Paypal may put such a clause in the agreement. And the user accepts it. This, may, or may not be binding on depending the relevant federal laws, state laws, statutes, precedents and other sht that may come into play. If there is not a specific law that forbids this and that law does not take action without explicitly being specified in the contract, Paypal may get away with this practice. IF, however, the user takes Paypal to court to 'challenge' that in court, gates to a whole hell of common law opens, as explained earlier. Again, it ends up being tied to whose coffer is deeper.
Hence the difference in the behaviors of US companies when dealing with the users in the US and the users in Europe and rest of the world.
...
TL:DR; Common law is a feudal, medieval mess that should have been left to fade in the annals of history a looong time ago...
I don't think such stuff flies in other jurisdictions than the US. Under civil law (ie Europe), what the law dictates defines what you can and cannot do. And contractual agreements can't override that. I very much think that that agreement is not applicable in Europe.