[lsaferite]

> no reason other than that they could

That's statement is wrong given the quote you posted right after. They clearly state it's due to perceived breaches of contractual obligations.

FWIW, I have no horse in the race, just pointing out what I would assuming is a misapprehension in your statement.

[Jensson]

That quote didn't show the whole part, I realized it looks a bit strange out of context there. Here I'll break it down with some more:

> Schiller suggests that Epic’s “colorful criticism” combined with its past actions “strongly suggests that Epic Sweden does not intend to follow the rules.”

So, the main transgression here was "colorful criticism", that is the ongoing behavior by epic, nothing about safety or contractual breeches. If they believed Epic would break contract they would have banned them 5 years ago when that breech happened, not now, nobody can argue that a 5 year old breech of contract on another account actually warrants a random ban of this account today.