Vayo using a bit of kettle logic here: he never VPNed, but if he did it was by mistake, and if it wasn't by mistake, then it wasn't during the big SCOOP tournament. Pretty standard in legal circles but still can weaken your case.
I would love to read this famous Frigate Ltd vs Damia. I tried for awhile in vain to find anything about it. The previously linked to Electrograph vs NEC though was enlightening. Not sure how either of the 3 cases they lay out are satisfied though. Going in reverse order:
(3) seems to imply that a venue change is in order if exclusive jurisdiction would deprive American-stlye due process (I may be grossly misunderstanding it though). That doesn't seem to be the case here seeing as Manx law is well-established and is under the auspices of the UK legal system.
(2) says that a venue change is in order if it's too difficult for the plaintiff to sue in the exclusive jurisdiction. That definitely does not seem to apply here as Vayo is a wealthy poker pro. I've heard of this clause being used in cases in which in order to sue in a certain jurisdiction, a hefty down payment is needed (see Austria v. Altmann).
(1) is the closest that could apply, I'd expect. I could hear an argument that Pokerstars has too much bargaining power in making the TOS. I don't think that'd hold too much water, but you never know.
At the end of the day, this isn't Pokerstars asking for exclusive jurisdiction in some random, arbitrary place for a legal advantage. While many companies do incorporate in Isle of Man for its favorable business regulations, Pokerstars really is headquartered there. And we're not talking about some kangaroo court in a jurisdiction that harbors grey/black market sites like some Caribbean nations.
One other question I have is if Vayo has filed a complaint with the UK Gambling Commission. I'd think they'd have jurisdiction since Pokerstars falls under their auspices.
As for the burden of proof question, once Pokerstars has shown that a player is known to play from a banned jurisdiction with a VPN, then the onus does fall on the player to show for a specific tournament that they weren't in that jurisdiction.
I wonder if Vayo does have any concrete evidence that he was in Canada. Even stuff like house rentals, plane tickets, dinner/grocery receipts, witness testimony, geolocation data from his phone, etc.
To corroborate what a number of posters have said about Pokerstars donating seized funds to charity, see this instance from 2011:
http://www.bankrollmob.com/poker-new...harity-518-402. I can't find anywhere that says its an official policy, but it's safe to assume they'll continue this practice. I see 0 incentive for Pokerstars to seize Vayo's funds unless he really did violate the TOS. Even if Pokerstars wins, their brand will be hurt.
The fact that I already feel pretty suspicious of Vayo just from his filling does not make me feel good for his case. I look forward to seeing Pokerstars' response.