I don't think that fact is up for debate.
I think the question in this thread is, "is it good practice for UA to take the harsh approach they take based on how badly it offends some people?" They are not obligated to stand on their contractual rights. UA can sanction however they want, harsh or not-- that's what the contract says.
That said, I defended UA's harsh approach above and gave my reasoning.
One thing that militates in favor of a harsh approach here is that despite what everyone who gets caught claims, I think most of the people UA is going after know exactly what they are doing.
The thing about situations like this- which arise in the law as well as in business contracts- is that a lot of people assume that just because they claim innocent intent, everyone has to believe them. I can't tell you the number of times someone has said to me "I'll just tell them X if I get caught" and I have to respond with exactly that- you can say anything you want, but that doesn't mean they have to credit your explanation. Indeed, many, many people are actually serving prison sentences where they figured the jury would have to believe their "innocent" explanation for what they did.
Yes, I understand that it is possible for someone to get caught up in this because they didn't read the program rules and just figured they could sell an award they weren't going to use or something. But I don't think that's a reasonable explanation of what most of these folks are doing. Rather, they just figure they won't get caught, the same way a lot of people assume that they won't get caught when they are doing something wrong.