Did you read this before you posted it? An honest question, because I fail to see anything resembling a point. You're entire post is just 7 words: "Like, why is it legal and moral?".
With access to the entire wealth of human knowledge via a Google search, you seriously need me to explain the history of the concept of law and contracts, how legislation has been built up over the course of western civilisation, designed to protect parties and enforce agreements of an nearly infinite variation, how precedents have been established throughout various levels of the legal system that enable predictable outcomes from specific wordings, how legal terms and phrases and their interpretation has evolved throughout history, resulting in the current legal system that enables multiple parties to create legally enforceable and binding agreements that when broken, do not result in a crime punishable by the criminal justice system, but rather a self-referencing agreement that stipulates punitive measures that all parties agree to? It's legal because literally the entire history of western civilisation dictates that this agreement is legal. Why do you think agreements are not legal? Furthermore, when you shoplift, do you ask why its illegal?
As for why it is moral, it becomes moral when the individual agreed to not do something, lied, went back on their word, and broke their agreement. This action, the actions of the individual, is the immoral action in this situation. You're hand-waving this away to maintain your bias. EA's response to this action is not immoral, because they literally provided an optional agree that stipulated we're going to do this if you break the agreement. The individual had no obligation to agree to it, to sign it, or to participate. They did so because they wanted access to EA's new product. The punitive measure in question is not disproportionate. As I have explained, it is actually very lenient. So, the end result is someone lied and broke their agreement for their own potential gain, and received a lenient punishment as per their agreement. Not only is this perfectly moral, I literally cannot see how this can be interpreted as immoral.
As this point - where you're literally asking how a commonplace legal contract is legal, and how a punitive measure for breaking that legal contract is moral - I'm seeing a bad faith argument. I'm happy to continue this discussion, but please offer something more substantial.