Hardly. In any case of "he said, she said" credibility is always a factor. If the company (or someone tasked with speaking on behalf of the company) states, "No one is automatically banned", that certainly has more credibility than someone who was banned and cries innocence. The company has a lot more to lose than the individual -- especially when what they are allegedly "covering up" is not worth risking a lawsuit over. If they said, "oh, some built in systems are not quite working right" it's not a big deal. It's simply not worth lying over. Those few on reddit and here with all the talk of "thousands" being wrongfully banned (I tried counting and found less than 2 dozen) stinks of bullshit. Now, if they were dumping toxic chemicals into public drinking water and hundreds were getting sick, well then the lying would be worth the risk. Banning a user when technically they don't even need a reason (read the eula) is hardly worth a lie. Geez people, use some common sense....