4 ms·
Let's imagine for argument's sake that there's a developer account team inside Google which could pull the relevant machine levers and reinstate OP's account. O
by solatic 8y ago
Let's imagine for argument's sake that there's a developer account team inside Google which could pull the relevant machine levers and reinstate OP's account. OP has already talked to developer relations support managers who have proven to be unable to get the developer account team to comply. Why should a Google legal team be more successful than a developer relations support manager at getting the developer account team to comply, when Legal is almost certainly laterally farther away inside Google?
Ultimately, in-house counsel at an org the size of Google is tasked with making the problem go away. It's easier to do that by burying the opposition in machine-generated paperwork than it is to convince people laterally far away in your org to comply. As a small business, you can't afford to pay for lawyers to deal with all the paperwork, so the bigger side (Google) always wins.
- gambiting 8y agoYou're correct if the case has any amount of complexity to it. This case does not. So unless they actually commit to it, the chances are very decent that the court will ask "yeah Google, why did you take this person's money and then closed their account? Unless you provide extremely compelling evidence for a good reason to close it, I'm going to order you to reopen that account". You can't bury a small claims court in paperwork - that's by design. And like others have suggested, if you write the letter in plain language, stating that they should at least look over your case again or it will be taken as bad will by the court, then the legal team might request that this information be provided by the engineering team - who will in turn say ok yeah, this is bollocks. Or they might not and he will lose. Either way, I would at least send a letter indicating such intention.