4 ms·

You might get your 100 dollars but google will ban you / stop doing any business with you the minute you start that so you better be sure you don't need your ac

You might get your 100 dollars but google will ban you / stop doing any business with you the minute you start that so you better be sure you don't need your account or google services going forward.

lightedman 14d ago
Then you sue them again in small claims court for the damages of not having access to your accounts (to which other online services require/are tied to which are not Google-owned properties) and have the judge force your reinstatement with a warning to Google that such punitive actions taken maliciously against the user will result in a prior fine*exponential multiplicative levied for each occurrence, with the base fine amount being the prior multiplicative fine issued. That leaves Google with very few chances to fuck up before they're financially wiped out, and this is a ruling you can have issued in a small claims court.
- deleted 14d ago
  [deleted]
- qlte 14d ago
  How would you force the judge to do that? Has this strategy ever worked for anyone you can cite? Have you tried it yourself? Otherwise, I'm not sure why just being able to imagine a knock out David vs. Goliath win against Google has any value whatsoever as a viable legal strategy.
  - bluGill 14d ago
    It's certainly valid and it has been done in other situations, but the details are different. I don't know that of any case where it's been tried against Google. It's certainly reasonable to think it could work against Google, but the details of would it actually work in the real world? I have no idea. Even if there was precedent that someone could cite, that doesn't mean that your case would win. If you really want to know, you need to consult a lawyer, not ask here.
  - lightedman 13d ago
    "How would you force the judge to do that?" You read my wording wrong - you wouldn't force the judge, the judge forces Google.

4 ms·

You might get your 100 dollars but google will ban you / stop doing any business with you the minute you start that so you better be sure you don't need your ac

by tempest_ 14d ago

You might get your 100 dollars but google will ban you / stop doing any business with you the minute you start that so you better be sure you don't need your account or google services going forward.

lightedman 14d ago
Then you sue them again in small claims court for the damages of not having access to your accounts (to which other online services require/are tied to which are not Google-owned properties) and have the judge force your reinstatement with a warning to Google that such punitive actions taken maliciously against the user will result in a prior fine*exponential multiplicative levied for each occurrence, with the base fine amount being the prior multiplicative fine issued. That leaves Google with very few chances to fuck up before they're financially wiped out, and this is a ruling you can have issued in a small claims court.
- deleted 14d ago
  [deleted]
- qlte 14d ago
  How would you force the judge to do that? Has this strategy ever worked for anyone you can cite? Have you tried it yourself? Otherwise, I'm not sure why just being able to imagine a knock out David vs. Goliath win against Google has any value whatsoever as a viable legal strategy.
  - bluGill 14d ago
    It's certainly valid and it has been done in other situations, but the details are different. I don't know that of any case where it's been tried against Google. It's certainly reasonable to think it could work against Google, but the details of would it actually work in the real world? I have no idea. Even if there was precedent that someone could cite, that doesn't mean that your case would win. If you really want to know, you need to consult a lawyer, not ask here.
  - lightedman 13d ago
    "How would you force the judge to do that?" You read my wording wrong - you wouldn't force the judge, the judge forces Google.