In a consumer contract of unequal bargaining power, the stronger party to the contract cannot deny to the weaker party the whole of the benefits under the contract and then rely upon a limitation or exclusion clause in the contract to justify that breach and denial of the very benefits to the other party which goes to the root of the contract.
In the old days, we called this a fundamental breach (Suisse Atlantique) . Now, we just call it a breach, followed by a refusal to apply the exclusion clause for reasons of unconscionability in a consumer contractual setting (Tercon Contractors v. B.C.; Hunter v. Syncrude).
Either way, EA's conduct as described in the article appears to me to be, beyond much doubt, plainly unlawful -- and the suggestion it is "legal" because of a provision in a EULA that they could never rely upon in court is wholly misguided.
This is an academic discussion unless and until somebody was to sue EA over a matter like this, but to excuse the conduct of a bully by suggesting it is "legal" is both morally -- and legally -- wrong.
End result: a software company cannot fundamentally breach a contract and then rely upon the terms of the EULA to get them off the hook and avoid a claim for rescission of the contract. The law doesn't work that way. Not for huge transportation companies with a global reach, not for monstrously large insurers upon which all modern commerce depends, and not for a comparatively small, "chump change", consumer products corporation like EA, either.