My two cents:
1. A casino obviously incurs a lot of fees for transacting money back and forth to customers. We should not care about that (we'll end up losing in the long run anyway) but at the same time, we don't like casino's that charge those fees to us either. If this rule - which will rarely affect any of us, because as stated above, it is highly doubtful it will ever be enforced upon regulars - prevents me from having to pay a transaction fee, I'll gladly accept it.
2. A casino has to protect itself against those that have malicious intent. We all look at it from our own angle "oh boy, if I win early on in my session, they're gonna stick it to me?" but what it is probably more about, is preventing that other type of person from, for example, cashing in & out all the time to get a higher VIP-level on e-wallets or whatever other (non-AML) scheme they may be running.
So I personally get both views: I get why the representative reacts how he reacts ("start your own casino and see how far you get without comparable terms") and I get why those firmly against it react how they react.
In the end though, this shows just how valuable this forum is, because when an operator gets more acquainted with the player perspective and visa versa, it can easily lead to small modifications to the term, that still protects the casino, without enraging the community.
So here's to more comparable discussions and - hopefully - meaningful change and a better understanding of things from both sides ?