An example that might make it more clear would be along the lines of:
- Purchase a car for regular use
- Using that car to smuggle drugs
- Getting caught
- Having the police impound it
It doesn't matter who bought the car or who used it to do the smuggling, and the company that financed it would still consider it a legal debt. Once everything is settled, the car may or may not be returned to the owner, even. The point is that if you look at the contract you signed when you bought it, you said you wouldn't use it for illegal activities. If you look at the financing documents, it said you would be liable to pay it back regardless of it's fitness for any particular use, or the condition it's in at any point in time.
I agree on points regarding paying for something and not getting it, what I'm saying is that you are not paying for something under terms of use that you directly control. It's a fine line and a small point in the argument, regarding the "when" you can use it as opposed to the "fact" that it is there for your use. The "it" is not the items you purchase in game, but the overall service itself, after all. The PED does not constitute a purchase of goods, in this sense, but even if it did, the PED is subject to confiscation pending determination of any legal involvement. Same as any other service or product you purchase.
MA's policy is not designed to give them a means to take things away without reason, it is designed to give them the authority to lock all aspects of an account when given a reason to do so.
The conditions stated in the OP indicate that there would be no reason to do so. The EULA thus only applies if a reason is fabricated outside of the process (hence it would be similar to a scam in that respect).
I really do suggest you read some of the EULA/TOS you take part in every day... If
EU's EULA freaks you out, you will be surprised at how mild it really is in comparison to others out there. Work place policies have gotten a lot like this, someone can make something up about you, and your boss can be forced into firing you even if they KNOW it's wrong, if the policy were ever held in a black and white "100% enforcement" way. The reason is that they eliminate the need to have legal evidence and determination of guilt before acting, etc... the point: they pretty much *have* to give absolute control in exchange for absolute proof.
Yes, my examples are extremes that highlight the defenses we would want to have available to us.
MA doesn't want to hear those defenses, and wouldn't stay in business long if they indiscrimenantly used the EULA to "take" our stuff. They won't, unless given a compelling reason to.