The two pieces of information I think that stand out are: 1. Law enforcement elected not to pursue charges 2. The banned parties were comfortable enough going t

The two pieces of information I think that stand out are: 1. Law enforcement elected not to pursue charges 2. The banned parties were comfortable enough going to a respected newspaper with the facts of their case, which, the newspaper presumably also did due diligence and sided with the users. I don’t think that there’s really any “hidden” context here that would convince many (except maybe those who get their paychecks from big G) that google is not in the wrong. Perhaps the hidden context here is that they also investigated the couple after the journal report and found other “violations” which were ban worthy after, not before, their case was aired publicly. I don’t think many people would consider this theoretical scenario fair either.