So those saying either of those are possible or happening need to prove it. You are right to say the latter would be illegal, so that's not only unlikely its a silly thing to say. Even the cited article does not actually dare to make the claim because they could be sued. It is a typically mealy mouthed "I don't know but" article. If they don't know then why say anything?
Honestly the entire factual basis for this careful non-accusation is a few people on twitter who could be lying, and yet somehow that suggests a corporation might be breaking the law?