Are summarized reviewer comments a thing? I recently got a rejection from an Elsevier journal. What struck me as odd was that each reviewer comment was three sentences each. To me they look clearly summarized, possibly by the editor. This is also suggested by the wording ("[...] from reviewer (sic!) pointy (sic!) of view [...]"). Colleagues argue that this might just be the way some people review papers.


Is it common that the editorial office summarizes the reviewer comments? 
Would I have received more complete feedback in case of a conditional acceptance?
How can it be justified that Elsevier doesn't pass on the feedback to the authors? Personally, I review papers ''for the love of science'', not to support a listed corporation.


Additional information: Three reviews/summaries in total, one of them enthusiastically positive.
Is it common that the editorial office summarizes the reviewer comments?


Yes, in addition to the actual reviewer feedback. It basically never happens that the actual reviewer feedback is hidden from the authors, and I don't see a point for doing so. If that happened to you, it's possible that there is a mistake, and you should ask the editor about that.


  Would I have received more complete feedback in case of a conditional acceptance?


Rejection letters are often short, because the reviewers might have particular high-level concerns that make a more detailed assessment of the paper pointless, for example, if the manuscript is either poorly written or out of the scope of the journal. (A good editor would desk-reject such a paper, but that's a different story.)


  How can it be justified that Elsevier doesn't pass on the feedback to the authors? Personally, I review papers ''for the love of science'', not to support a listed corporation.


If your assumption is true, I don't see a point for that. However, take into account that the editor is typically not a representative of Elsevier.