Reasonable people are assumed to know that the obligation of a service provider to obey the law of its jurisdiction has a higher legal priority than their obligation to oby contract terms with customers.
#2 likely fails because the statement was at worst ambiguous or incomplete, not false. The statement that they do not keep logs by default combined with what reasonable people are expected to know as mentioned above should have led a reasonable person to see through the ambiguousness.
And if not PM went in to more detail in the TOS. Yes, it is well known that most people don't read the TOS. Heck, I often do not read the TOS.
But when you are using a service as part of some criminal endeavor or for something for which there is a reasonable chance will be mistaken for a criminal endeavor you really do need to read the TOS. To not do so is unreasonable.
#3 probably fails because there is likely no way to prove intent to deceive.
#4 likely runs into problems similar to those of #2. A reasonable person using a service for furthering some illegal activity would be expected to put some care into checking out the service to see if it is safe for such activity, and in doing so should have discovered that PM is not safe against Swiss law enforcement obtaining some meta data.