4 ms·

I note from the mention of £25k that you're probably in the UK. If you don't mind burning fifty quid or so, you might find it satisfying to use the small claim

I note from the mention of £25k that you're probably in the UK. If you don't mind burning fifty quid or so, you might find it satisfying to use the small claims process to issue for a sensible (not super-inflated) estimate of damages. The below is not legal advice, but is written from personal experience. Try to leave a clear paper trail of your reasonableness: send a clear notice before action with a reasonable time limit for reply, offering to settle for the estimated damages or reinstatement of your account. After this time expires, you can file a claim online. There are then three cases to consider: 1. Google settle immediately in response to your notice before action, either with damages or another action that satisfies you. 2. You file and Google fail to turn up at the resulting hearing. You will get default judgement and should be able to add your court fee to the judgement against them given your offer in the notice before action. 3. You file, Google oppose and send representation. Assume they win with probability 1. You are down a court fee and your time to turn up and sit round the table. They've been forced to engage properly with you and the judge to ensure they take your complaint seriously, and you've had as good chance as you'll get to argue that their behaviour and/or terms are unreasonable. Their costs will be substantial and the rules do not allow them to recover them from a non-vexatious claimant...

wwweston 8y ago
> Their costs will be substantial and the rules do not allow them to recover them from a non-vexatious claimant... Do the rules allow them to bring the question of whether the claimant is non-vexatious to litigation?
- qhwudbebd 8y ago
  I've been a claimant from time to time but am not a solicitor, so you'd need to ask a proper lawyer. Nobody has even tried anything like that in any of my claims, it's deliberately a very high bar, but as far as I know, it'd be a decision you'd ask the judge to make at the end, in the same way you ask for your court fee when the respondent refused your offer to settle in the notice-before-action.
- Pharmakon 8y ago
  The first test in U.K. common law is whether or not the case has any merit; not a losing case, not mistaken, but without merit. The kind of case we’re typically talking about are either fraudulent, or completely bonkers, and that’s what this is meant to prevent. Second, the vexatious litigant is a serial offender, not just some fool who doesn’t understand how the courts are meant to work. Someone claiming their livelihood was impinged on by termination of their accounts by Google, given said termination actually occurred and not in the context of a criminal enterprise won’t meet that standard. Not a chance. Now if you made dozens of accounts and sued over each one, or were a spammer, drug dealer, etc... that would probably annoy a judge.
gerdesj 8y ago
Assume they win with probability 1 I would not assign that probability at all. The small claims system is actually designed to be fair! Going in all lawyered up is more likely to raise eyebrows and could be counter productive. The whole point is a quick and easy process with the minimum of fuss. You present your argument and they present theirs and a general test of reasonableness is applied. More Judge {Rinder|Judy} and less Rumpole of the Bailey.
- qhwudbebd 8y ago
  Yes, sorry, that was badly written: it was intended as "this is what happens in the worst case" rather than "this is guaranteed to happen".
- ehsankia 8y ago
  It is part of their ToS. Just because the ToS is a bit too liberal doesn't mean they broke any law.
ttty 8y ago
But why would Google have to pay for any damages? I spoke with a lawyer about this and looks like it won't work at all. From what I understand Google doesn't have any obligation to serve his app on the play store. Unless you can prove that they are a monopoly, but to do that it's very hard and you need a lot of investigation.
- qhwudbebd 8y ago
  The point here is not that you will win if they defend it. The point here is that you will win if they don't, and at the very least cost them significant non-reclaimable money if they do.
amenod 8y ago
I sincerely hope you go that route (well, if you can't resolve the issue otherwise, of course), and if you do, please please please make a post about it later.

wwweston 8y ago

> Their costs will be substantial and the rules do not allow them to recover them from a non-vexatious claimant... Do the rules allow them to bring the question of whether the claimant is non-vexatious to litigation?

qhwudbebd 8y ago
I've been a claimant from time to time but am not a solicitor, so you'd need to ask a proper lawyer. Nobody has even tried anything like that in any of my claims, it's deliberately a very high bar, but as far as I know, it'd be a decision you'd ask the judge to make at the end, in the same way you ask for your court fee when the respondent refused your offer to settle in the notice-before-action.
Pharmakon 8y ago
The first test in U.K. common law is whether or not the case has any merit; not a losing case, not mistaken, but without merit. The kind of case we’re typically talking about are either fraudulent, or completely bonkers, and that’s what this is meant to prevent. Second, the vexatious litigant is a serial offender, not just some fool who doesn’t understand how the courts are meant to work. Someone claiming their livelihood was impinged on by termination of their accounts by Google, given said termination actually occurred and not in the context of a criminal enterprise won’t meet that standard. Not a chance. Now if you made dozens of accounts and sued over each one, or were a spammer, drug dealer, etc... that would probably annoy a judge.

gerdesj 8y ago

Assume they win with probability 1 I would not assign that probability at all. The small claims system is actually designed to be fair! Going in all lawyered up is more likely to raise eyebrows and could be counter productive. The whole point is a quick and easy process with the minimum of fuss. You present your argument and they present theirs and a general test of reasonableness is applied. More Judge {Rinder|Judy} and less Rumpole of the Bailey.

qhwudbebd 8y ago
Yes, sorry, that was badly written: it was intended as "this is what happens in the worst case" rather than "this is guaranteed to happen".
ehsankia 8y ago
It is part of their ToS. Just because the ToS is a bit too liberal doesn't mean they broke any law.

ttty 8y ago

But why would Google have to pay for any damages? I spoke with a lawyer about this and looks like it won't work at all. From what I understand Google doesn't have any obligation to serve his app on the play store. Unless you can prove that they are a monopoly, but to do that it's very hard and you need a lot of investigation.

qhwudbebd 8y ago
The point here is not that you will win if they defend it. The point here is that you will win if they don't, and at the very least cost them significant non-reclaimable money if they do.

amenod 8y ago

I sincerely hope you go that route (well, if you can't resolve the issue otherwise, of course), and if you do, please please please make a post about it later.