I'll always be a jerk about people sourcing wikipedia. It's not an accurate source. Use it to research something or get other sources, that's fine, never use it as an authoritative source on anything. Literally anyone can edit it for any reason. It's not accurate. It's not necessarily wrong either, but it's the very definition of a non-authoritative source.

I agree with you that this kind of practice is common. I don't think it is good. It can easily be abused. And the user policy is so wide and overarching that it can be used arbitrarily to shut people down while finding a justification. Now PAYPAL absolutely has an incentive not to abuse this or else they'll hemorrhage customers even faster than they are now. And yes I'll concede the point that most media outlets are spinning this for the maximum outrage angle. That said I think it's very good these sorts of practices are getting more attention. Large corporations really shouldn't be able to do willy nilly as they please when they insert themselves as a middleman and engage in profiteering (in the Marxist sense, PayPal absolutely deserves to make money off of their service but should they position themselves as a major payment facilitator, their business ends up leaving the realm of purely private enterprise and they need to be regulated similar to how banks are regulated, if they're the only game in town they will jack their rates up as high as they can go, essentially a classic monopolizing tactic, needs to be regulated against.)

All the rules against false advertising and the like are important but they need to be decided in actual courts of law and shouldn't be forced through corporately chosen arbitration teams when people rely on these services for their livelihoods.