> I don't know what happened in this situation, but generally refunding money for TOS violations is a bad idea.
You can learn the article and learn what happened. We are not talking about things in general, but about this particular situation. Basically, it's pure theft. But since the amount is so low, nobody will sue them. In this way they can scam thousands of people and go unpunished.
There's nothing in the article indicating why he was banned. They say he violated the ToS. He says he didn't. Maybe it was a false positive, but we don't have enough information to know what happened.
The right to remain silent is a vital right in criminal court cases, but certainly doesn't apply to our own conclusions. Consider that only Tinder has records indicating whether there was a ToS violation, and what that violation was. Tinder is not releasing those records. Tinder has a financial incentive to claim that there is a ToS violation. Putting those three items together isn't proof that Tinder is lying, but is evidence in that direction.
How do you know the blog author doesn't have evidence of a ToS violation (that they're not sharing)? Similar incentives to shade the story exist on both sides, I think.
The blog author isn't the one who stated a tos occured. The company would need to provide proof. The author could refute that with their own data afterwards.
If someone says you stole something should we ask you for proof that you did and if you fail to provide proof should we say you are being shady by not answering?
You can learn the article and learn what happened. We are not talking about things in general, but about this particular situation. Basically, it's pure theft. But since the amount is so low, nobody will sue them. In this way they can scam thousands of people and go unpunished.