There's a big difference between what's in a contract (and I'm not sure TOU even count as contracts, even though they may call themselves such) and what's actually considered "binding". IANAL but as I understand it, the more unilateral a contract is (see just about any TOU) the more likely it is to be thrown out.

I'm aware of that, but this kind of provision (chargebacks cancel access to service) have been around for quite some time. I think I'd have heard about it if they'd been challenged successfully.

A conglomerate refusing their customers as a retaliation for exercising their rights to consumer protection is exactly why we have class action lawsuits in the first place (I think). The TOU may have clauses in there that reserve their right to cancel your Origin account, but I think the situation gets murky when you prevent paying customers from using products they may have purchased at brick & mortar retailers, etc.

Someone, someday, is going to challenge this. Its one of the many unanswered legal questions we have with licensing and ownership rights.

I'd assume the sort of organization that would write in a chargeback=cancel policy would also work strenuously to avoid an actual test of that policy in the courts...