Actually, there is. He's been informed by Facebook that they have revoked his right to use their site, which is their right. Any update that he issues to to the plugin would be solid evidence that he had been back on Facebook. In a US legal system that regularly bows to the will of large corporations, he could not only be sued, but also charged with a crime under the CFAA (unauthorized access) should he simply open another account.
I'd do it. FB Purity is the only thing keeping me on Facebook, so I have no qualms about risking my account for it. I'm gone as soon as it stops working anyway.
No, seriously, I'm having a hard time believing this.
Capitalism is not a force of nature. Countries have an enormous amount of legislation in place to ensure companies can do business, and invest huge amounts of money in services supporting the private sector (infrastructure, education, etc).
These companies wield a tremendous amount of social power, especially services like Facebook. There's nothing odd about holding these companies to certain standards and laws that ensure they can not negatively influence the civil society from which they profit so much. Being allowed to refuse service to the very people that enable your business to exist is a privilege, not a right, and it comes with restrictions.
This is quite normal in most countries outside the US.
That someone who owns a company does not have authority in who they will and will not do business with?
The OP claimed that that did not exist at all in Germany.
Whether alleged violation of the user term is a valid reason is open to questions. Without going to court, I strongly doubt it is.
Sure you have. It's called 'virtuelles Hausverbot' and heise.de makes heavy use of it for their forums.
Most prominent case: Guenther Freiherr v. Gravenreuth was legally banned from heise.de forums with this instrument.
Here's the german wikipedia article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuelles_Hausverbot
The bans by Heise where not arbitrarily.