it's both. Explaining the case (by a support person) might be evidence used in court for wrongdoing. That's similar to the reasons why most interviews won't tell you why you are rejected.
Even if true, that still falls under unwilling. But is there a single case where being given a reason for a ban has been used to successfully sue someone? (Assuming the reason is half-way legitimate, i.e. not "You were banned based on a protected characteristic.")
I'm rather sick of implausible legal scenarios being imagined to excuse corporate behavior. At least let their PR department come up with the excuses, don't do it for free.
Not wanting to expose yourself to legal liability may be good business sense, but it is absolutely a choice they are making. It's not like they are under a consent order from the DOJ not to tell these guys why their account was suspended.
This sounds like splitting hairs but I think it's a meaningful difference. Powerful people and companies use Bullshit as a means of obfuscating their motives and actions. They hire armies of lawyers and PR flacks to message everything in a way that absolves them of responsibility. You can't just take stuff like this at face value.
They just murdered a business partner's company and won't even tell them why. It is possible that he's lying to us and was doing some shady shit (shady people almost never tell you they are being shady), or it is possible that he just got crushed by a Kafkaesque bureaucratic machine.
But in our case it looks like they're not willing to solve the issue at all. They will surely help someone who pays them millions in commissions, but they're not interested even to talk to smaller fish.
I'm rather sick of implausible legal scenarios being imagined to excuse corporate behavior. At least let their PR department come up with the excuses, don't do it for free.