[zinekeller]

I'm sorry if this is blunt, but it is clear from the terms that your use case is explicitly not allowed:

  Any natural person using the Service must be at least 18 years of age. The Service may only be used in the United States, including its territories, or on a United States military base. The Service is controlled or operated (or both) from the United States, and is not intended to subject us to any non-U.S. jurisdiction or law. The Service may not be appropriate or available for use in some non-U.S. jurisdictions. Any use of the Service is at your own risk, and you must comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations in doing so. We may limit the Service’s availability at any time and without notice, in whole or in part, to any person, geographic area or jurisdiction that we choose.

Especially that since you're in Europe most US banks won't service most Europeans (directly) because of mutually-incompatible laws between the US and EU. In Marcus' case this has always been clear at the terms you have agreed to (I have to trawl through old versions of the agreement and that exact paragraph is always there).

I believe that Leftium's advice (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38136366) is solid, but the first line (Unlikely to convince them to re-open the account) is accurate here. First-line customer service will almost certainly not have the powers to do anything about this, and the silence is probably because someone have reviewed the account and confirmed that your account is too weird (phone number is dead and address is inaccurate, reasonable possibility of running afoul of anti-money laundering laws which triggers the "no tipping-off" (https://aml-cft.net/library/tipping-off/) provisions).

[fsckboy]

that legal boilerplate seems intended to protect the company from foreign laws (is not intended to subject us to any non-U.S. jurisdiction or law). They don't actually care if you use the service from other places ("The Service may not be appropriate or available for use in some non-U.S. jurisdictions"), they just don't want to be on the hook for a foreign jurisdiction enforcing any consumer rights, taxes, etc.

[zinekeller]

Sorry, but the second sentence is clear as day:

  The Service may **only** be used in the United States, including its territories, or on a United States military base.

(emphasis added)

The rough approximation of other sentences are of course found in other banks' terms (they really want certainty that they wouldn't be prosecuted in Otheristan!) but definitely not this one. Please state which word/s that allow you to use it in another country (outside of US bases).

[fsckboy]

>Please state which word/s that allow you to use it in another country

I already stated those words, you're not parsing closely enough.

Right after they say what you just said, they said and I quoted, "The Service may not be appropriate or available for use in some non-U.S. jurisdictions."

why would they say "may not" instead of "are not"? because they don't care if you use the services, they just want to be able to hide behind the other statement if you become a pain in the ass.

Notice that in his interactions with the company, they are not bringing to bear the statement that you think is so binding. They are actually saying that they want to help him.

If you live in a foreign country, and open a bank account and they tell you "it's for residents only", if you move out of the country they don't get to keep your money. Every modern country has ways of dealing with these issues, they've been happening since the days of sailing ships.

In modern times the new challenge is not long ocean voyages, but how to deal with a company that is online only and has no humans. But you know what the company has? Legal counsel, they have to. And you can contact that department/attorney and say you have a legal beef, and they will do something.

[zinekeller]

> if you move out of the country they don't get to keep your money.

Oh sure, I'm not disputing that (and I certainly would want sherlock_h to get their life savings), but again Marcus has been so clear in this (including not allowing to input a non-US number and address) that you having to say "oh it's boilerplate stuff" runs against the practicality that, yes, Marcus does not want people outside the US to hold accounts.

Also, "may not" is almost always certainly interpreted in law as equivalent as "shall not". There are edge cases where this is not the case, but both federal and Utah law (where Marcus legally operates) use this meaning.

[fsckboy]

you edited, which doesn't bother me but now i'll edit :)

They are not invoking this clause, they are trying to help him. So the clause is not for the purpose you are suggesting.

I had another realization: they probably need the clause to not violate US laws about money laundering and international money movements. It doesn't mean they don't want to, they're a website, the more customers the better. It means they don't want to deal with regulation

[zinekeller]

Please ask a lawyer on how to interpret "may not" and you will understand on why I'm continually insisting. (Yes, "may" has some leeway, "may not" does not have a leeway. IDK why is this the case, but legalese is legalese.)