It doesn't matter which way you lean. It doesn't make any difference. Its about fairness and innocent til proven guilty at these allegations. Just like most of this forum absolutely demanded not so long ago discussing AMD viral marketing. Smoking gun required. The bed has been pretty much made, and now it must be slept in. Right everyone?
Agreed, and I'll also add that there is more nuance: it will depend on the initial evidence/claim.
Here, we see a somewhat bizarre statement, especially from a business - why alienate potential customers, most corporate/business thinking is the exact opposite. The phrasing is strangely lawyerly too, just weird.
So it's not like someone is coming out of left field to accuse Origin unfairly. This is not a claim that Origin is really a unicorn, so we need absolute proof. Instead, the situation is begging for clarification/explanation because it's a crazy situation/set of facts. If we just take the literal words of the statement, they leave gaping holes that beg for an explanation to be supplied. The set of facts don't seem to add up.
To extend the smoking gun analogy - we demand a higher burden of proof for capital crimes like murder - you need the smoking gun to overcome a higher burden of presumed innocence. But for something like jaywalking, you don't need a smoking gun. And for some situations, you are like "ok where is the video footage, this makes no sense!"