5 ms·

Did he try to do anything in a small claims court? Get a consultation with a lawyer? This is such a slam dunk it seems infinitely worth pursuing. Obviously yes

by R0b0t1 5y ago

Did he try to do anything in a small claims court? Get a consultation with a lawyer? This is such a slam dunk it seems infinitely worth pursuing. Obviously yes you'd rather not, but I never see updates on if the issue gets solved.

tedivm 5y ago
If you sue google they'll close your entire google account, which in turn can cause a lot of issues for a lot of people. I personally refuse to use gmail in part because of this- if you have a problem with one google service you risk losing access to all of them.
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  This is generally news to the hyper-libertarian HN clientele but I am pretty sure enforcing your rights as a consumer isn't supposed to open you up to retaliation in the US.
  - WinterMount223 5y ago
    It’s not unusual. They decide that they don’t want to do business with you anymore. It can be included in their TOS that pre-arbitration is mandatory. By you going directly to civil courts you are breaching their TOS which is a reason for termination.
    - indymike 5y ago
      > By you going directly to civil courts you are breaching their TOS which is a reason for termination That's a novel theory. So if I sue the power company because a cherry picker rear-ended my 1978 land yacht they can just shut me off in -20 winter weather because I sued them?
      - WinterMount223 5y ago
        I didn’t say that. In your example, you are a consumer of a public service. In the Google case you are a user of a private service.
        indymike 5y ago
        No, I'm a consumer of a giant publicly traded company that rides on some amount of publicly funded infrastructure. Hmm... sounds like Google a bit doesn't it?
      - sangnoir 5y ago
        > That's a novel theory. This is not novel at all - patent cross-licensing has been using similar language for decades: "Your license to our bag of patents is valid unless you take us to court - then all bets are off". It's a very short jump from patent licensing to Terms of Service, I bet there's a lot of related case law.
        R0b0t1 5y ago
        Quite different as disputes between businesses are seen quite differently from consumer and business disputes. The protections in the US are not nearly as strong as, say, Germany, where it's entirely possible that a grocery store can't ban you because they're the only place to shop. The right to do business with who you wish is more protected in the US. At the same time, there are laws about and the courts look poorly on retaliating on a weaker party for seeking legitimate redress.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  There’s more to the story though - Google is actually collateral damage in this case and had nothing to do with locking the phone. Best Buy scammed them by selling them a phone that automatically locks itself to the first carrier it sees, which is T-Mobile since Fi runs on that. A small claims court case against Best Buy or even a warranty claim should sort it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by R0b0t1 5y ago

tedivm 5y ago

If you sue google they'll close your entire google account, which in turn can cause a lot of issues for a lot of people. I personally refuse to use gmail in part because of this- if you have a problem with one google service you risk losing access to all of them.

R0b0t1 5y ago
This is generally news to the hyper-libertarian HN clientele but I am pretty sure enforcing your rights as a consumer isn't supposed to open you up to retaliation in the US.
- WinterMount223 5y ago
  It’s not unusual. They decide that they don’t want to do business with you anymore. It can be included in their TOS that pre-arbitration is mandatory. By you going directly to civil courts you are breaching their TOS which is a reason for termination.
  - indymike 5y ago
    > By you going directly to civil courts you are breaching their TOS which is a reason for termination That's a novel theory. So if I sue the power company because a cherry picker rear-ended my 1978 land yacht they can just shut me off in -20 winter weather because I sued them?
    - WinterMount223 5y ago
      I didn’t say that. In your example, you are a consumer of a public service. In the Google case you are a user of a private service.
      - indymike 5y ago
        No, I'm a consumer of a giant publicly traded company that rides on some amount of publicly funded infrastructure. Hmm... sounds like Google a bit doesn't it?
    - sangnoir 5y ago
      > That's a novel theory. This is not novel at all - patent cross-licensing has been using similar language for decades: "Your license to our bag of patents is valid unless you take us to court - then all bets are off". It's a very short jump from patent licensing to Terms of Service, I bet there's a lot of related case law.
      - R0b0t1 5y ago
        Quite different as disputes between businesses are seen quite differently from consumer and business disputes. The protections in the US are not nearly as strong as, say, Germany, where it's entirely possible that a grocery store can't ban you because they're the only place to shop. The right to do business with who you wish is more protected in the US. At the same time, there are laws about and the courts look poorly on retaliating on a weaker party for seeking legitimate redress.
Nextgrid 5y ago
There’s more to the story though - Google is actually collateral damage in this case and had nothing to do with locking the phone. Best Buy scammed them by selling them a phone that automatically locks itself to the first carrier it sees, which is T-Mobile since Fi runs on that. A small claims court case against Best Buy or even a warranty claim should sort it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]