> Judge Fogel ruled that: (1) the PayPal User Agreement affords PayPal “sole discretion” to place holds on its users’ accounts, irrespective of whether the user has engaged in restricted activities;
> and (2) PayPal has no contractual obligation to provide users with an explanation as to why their accounts may have been frozen.
> [...]
> Finally, he dismissed the unjust enrichment claim on the ground that the parties’ relationship was governed by an express contract.
https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-approves-4m-deal-closed...
http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Pay...
Some chunk of the doc:
> Judge Fogel ruled that: (1) the PayPal User Agreement affords PayPal “sole discretion” to place holds on its users’ accounts, irrespective of whether the user has engaged in restricted activities;
> and (2) PayPal has no contractual obligation to provide users with an explanation as to why their accounts may have been frozen.
> [...]
> Finally, he dismissed the unjust enrichment claim on the ground that the parties’ relationship was governed by an express contract.
> etc etc bla bla bla