Niantec is falling in the classic 'never trust the client' trap, just like every other multiplayer game out there. At first the game works great for everyone, but some cheating is possible. They freak out about the cheating, start trying to prevent it (which is impossible, since they are trusting the client) by installing intrusive software on the client's device.

The real hackers don't really care. They just reverse the game's network protocol and talk to the servers directly, completely ignoring the anti cheat business. Or they work around the anti cheat, which is of course possible, because they control the client.

But the legitimate users? Their machines will become sluggish, they will get hit with false positives and banned for nothing, and in the worst cases their privacy is also forfeit as everything they do on their own system gets monitored by some game company.

I guess I'm splitting hairs here, but they didn't really pay for the service they were banned from. Using your bar analogy, it's like they were let into the bar for free, bought a drink (maybe finished it, we don't know?) then got kicked out for fighting. Would they be entitled to their money back for the drink?

Cheating has a small impact on the player base and probably on how much money Niantic is able to extract from the store. Holding onto gyms for a period of time nets the trainer "free" coins they didn't have to purchase. GPS spoofing opens up some of the more remote gyms to more attacks, and allows certain people to level up faster. It also has the effect of driving legitimate players away because they feel they can't compete.

I don't agree with many of the decisions Niantic have made, and I no longer play the game. But I don't agree with people demanding refunds from game companies that they have been banned from. I like that cheating players are punished. Cheaters in Counter Strike have left a very sour impression on me.

They were banned. Niantic ban for what they consider cheating. I figured if the OP was mistakenly banned for some reason they probably would have mentioned that in their original comment.