>>"Firstly, Dotcom did not willingly stop paying the bill. It was not his fault the company stopped being paid and therefore was storing data for nothing."
It certainly wasn't their fault.
Why should they pay the price for someone else's dubious business model?
What was he actually doing to try and keep the data, beyond supposedly asking a company to keep data for free for an indefinite period?
>>"Secondly, a very large chunk of the evidence to be used in any trial will be on those servers. After all, the trial would basically be about the content of his 'service'. Therefore, if you destroy (or allow to be destroyed) all the data, you are effectively destroying any chance of a trial."
You're not destroying any chance of a trial.
You're not even meaningfully altering the chances of a fair trial unless
a) the Leaseweb data contained the only copies of important company records which would exonerate the company
b) an argument was to be made on the overall balance of types of hosted content, and the Leaseweb data for some reason involved user content seriously different in terms of legit vs. dodgy content to the US-hosted data, with the US servers being 'dirtier'.
Would a US case actually have to pay much attention to the types of content hosted elsewhere, if they could show some threshold had been crossed with respect to US-hosted data?
Isn't the hosting in the USA a major justification for jurisdiction being claimed over MU in the first place?
>>"Finally, many of the actions against Dotcom have been declared illegal or against normal process etc."
Maybe it's better to distinguish between those two categories - there's a huge difference between rights being violated and the police being heavy-handed and/or overcautious when making an arrest.
If anything, I think it might tend to draw attention away from the former when the latter is mixed in with them, especially if the latter is can be more arguably a matter of opinion.
Possibly time will tell who is telling the truth regarding them notifying him about the deletion or not, though if they had no legal requirement to host it for free, it's not clear why they would need to avoid notifying him.
If they'd said 'unless your arrears are settled in the next N days, your data is at risk', what could he have done to stop them?
If there were legal actions he could have taken in NL to prevent the deletion, if he really needed the data he could have presumably taken such actions whenever he felt like it?.
Similarly, if his lawyers had made various requests for the data to be kept, what responses did they get to such requests, or did they treat no response as some kind of agreement?
If the company had been asked but hadn't given any serious assurances of retention, that would have been cause for most people to worry, let alone cause for half-decent lawyers to worry..
If they have given assurances they have now broken, I assume that Dotcom will soon be publicising that quite widely, and providing the evidence.