3 ms·

>If Google does not change its conduct, it could be fined up to €250,000 about US$323,000), the court said. Hmm, personalized e-mail support for an entire nati

by jnbiche 12y ago

>If Google does not change its conduct, it could be fined up to €250,000 about US$323,000), the court said. Hmm, personalized e-mail support for an entire nation, or US$323,000. Wonder which one finance will recommend? I mean, if you're going to fine private companies for non-misleading, non-fraudulent behavior, then do it right like the US: $250,000 per day of non-compliance. Better yet, just let the market take care of it. If people really dislike not having e-mail support, they'll stop using Google. So far, it's pretty clear that people value Google services more than they do personalized customer support, since it's almost universally known that Google provides zero support for free accounts, and limited support for even paid accounts.

jacquesm 12y ago
'per day', 'in total' or 'per instance'? The latter could hurt really bad and is very likely the case.
- malka 12y ago
  per instance. Not suree what they mean by instance. If it's 250K per unsanswered mail, it could become extremely expensive for Google.
rbehrends 12y ago
> Hmm, personalized e-mail support for an entire nation, or US$323,000. Wonder which one finance will recommend? This is from §890 (1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure [1]. It's €250,000 per violation of an injunction, and if that doesn't suffice to enforce the injunction, the court can also order coercive detention (i.e., putting you in jail). Essentially, it's the German equivalent of dealing with contempt of court in case of an injunction; it's not strictly a fine, it's a coercive measure, one that can be escalated. [1] http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_zpo/englisch_zpo.html#p3369 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_zpo/englisch_zpo....
currysausage 12y ago
> If people really dislike not having e-mail support, they'll stop using Google. When they are locked out of their account and first realize that support is non-existent? Happens all the time, happened to me once (no, I didn't forget my password). > since it's almost universally known that Google provides zero support for free accounts Universally known among techies. This doesn't mean that every incoming email should now be checked and processed individually by a Google employee, the court said. [...] It was left up to Google how to deal with future incoming email. So Google doesn't need to respond to "How do I change the color of my inbox?" or "New design sucks!". But in case of serious trouble, a customer can expect the possibility of contacting a human.
- mseebach 12y ago
  So, they don't have to "check and process" each message, it's just that not checking and processing each message and being honest about it is not OK? So how much is enough?
  - onli 12y ago
    That is hard to say, but the article gives part of an possible answer. It is obviously not enough to simply say "we don't read it". It thereby follows that it it not ok to not have a channel of communication. This implies that emails who are sent to the support address must have the option to be responded to - if they are important enough. Because if they are all just never answered, this is the same as not having a communication channel in the first place. My guess is that it has to be a ranking based on importance. Of course it is necessary to answer each one, like "How do I find the google website". But it might be that - in germany - things like having an account closed people relied upon in good faith and than not responding to inquiries why is problematic, given that this can high and monetary personal consequences (violation of customer protection laws, to which all of this is referring - and yes, this is not fully dependent on whether they pay. Imagine important document stored only there - maybe created there, so it is not totally not understandable not having a backup already - and then lost, thus causing a million dollar company to fail. I'm exaggerating, but stuff like that). Further, having an available contact channel is necessary to be able to submit legal documents, though I expect that Google has another avenue for that already.
_delirium 12y ago
> it's almost universally known that Google provides zero support I don't think that fact is widely known among the general public, especially in countries where people assume (due to the law requiring it) that any company can be contacted and will reply to reasonable inquiries. It wouldn't be odd for someone in that case to assume that Google also has an address where they respond to inquiries, since every business does (or should). You could make the same argument you made in the other direction: If Google really dislikes responding to email, just don't do business in Germany. It seems so far that most companies value doing business in Germany more than they value the right not to respond to email. It's almost universally known that companies doing business in Germany must provide a contact address where they respond to inquiries, so this isn't really a misleading or unexpected feature.
Tomte 12y ago
They are not required to do real support. But since they openly state that the email address is not monitored, they do not fulfil the requirements of the law. It's perfectly fine never to respond to any email sent there. They just have to accept that mails sent there can have legal effects. The problem is basically that by telling everyone "I don't read it" they are suggesting to others that they cannot successfully (in a legal sense) contact Google using that email address. And that's wrong.
- mcherm 12y ago
  > It's perfectly fine never to respond to any email sent there. That's not what the decision says.
  - Tomte 12y ago
    That's correct, that's my interpretation of the law. But it's a minor point in the grounds, it's dicta at best.

by jnbiche 12y ago

jacquesm 12y ago

'per day', 'in total' or 'per instance'? The latter could hurt really bad and is very likely the case.

malka 12y ago
per instance. Not suree what they mean by instance. If it's 250K per unsanswered mail, it could become extremely expensive for Google.

rbehrends 12y ago

> Hmm, personalized e-mail support for an entire nation, or US$323,000. Wonder which one finance will recommend? This is from §890 (1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure [1]. It's €250,000 per violation of an injunction, and if that doesn't suffice to enforce the injunction, the court can also order coercive detention (i.e., putting you in jail). Essentially, it's the German equivalent of dealing with contempt of court in case of an injunction; it's not strictly a fine, it's a coercive measure, one that can be escalated. [1] http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_zpo/englisch_zpo.html#p3369 http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_zpo/englisch_zpo....

currysausage 12y ago

> If people really dislike not having e-mail support, they'll stop using Google. When they are locked out of their account and first realize that support is non-existent? Happens all the time, happened to me once (no, I didn't forget my password). > since it's almost universally known that Google provides zero support for free accounts Universally known among techies. This doesn't mean that every incoming email should now be checked and processed individually by a Google employee, the court said. [...] It was left up to Google how to deal with future incoming email. So Google doesn't need to respond to "How do I change the color of my inbox?" or "New design sucks!". But in case of serious trouble, a customer can expect the possibility of contacting a human.

mseebach 12y ago
So, they don't have to "check and process" each message, it's just that not checking and processing each message and being honest about it is not OK? So how much is enough?
- onli 12y ago
  That is hard to say, but the article gives part of an possible answer. It is obviously not enough to simply say "we don't read it". It thereby follows that it it not ok to not have a channel of communication. This implies that emails who are sent to the support address must have the option to be responded to - if they are important enough. Because if they are all just never answered, this is the same as not having a communication channel in the first place. My guess is that it has to be a ranking based on importance. Of course it is necessary to answer each one, like "How do I find the google website". But it might be that - in germany - things like having an account closed people relied upon in good faith and than not responding to inquiries why is problematic, given that this can high and monetary personal consequences (violation of customer protection laws, to which all of this is referring - and yes, this is not fully dependent on whether they pay. Imagine important document stored only there - maybe created there, so it is not totally not understandable not having a backup already - and then lost, thus causing a million dollar company to fail. I'm exaggerating, but stuff like that). Further, having an available contact channel is necessary to be able to submit legal documents, though I expect that Google has another avenue for that already.

_delirium 12y ago

> it's almost universally known that Google provides zero support I don't think that fact is widely known among the general public, especially in countries where people assume (due to the law requiring it) that any company can be contacted and will reply to reasonable inquiries. It wouldn't be odd for someone in that case to assume that Google also has an address where they respond to inquiries, since every business does (or should). You could make the same argument you made in the other direction: If Google really dislikes responding to email, just don't do business in Germany. It seems so far that most companies value doing business in Germany more than they value the right not to respond to email. It's almost universally known that companies doing business in Germany must provide a contact address where they respond to inquiries, so this isn't really a misleading or unexpected feature.

Tomte 12y ago

They are not required to do real support. But since they openly state that the email address is not monitored, they do not fulfil the requirements of the law. It's perfectly fine never to respond to any email sent there. They just have to accept that mails sent there can have legal effects. The problem is basically that by telling everyone "I don't read it" they are suggesting to others that they cannot successfully (in a legal sense) contact Google using that email address. And that's wrong.

mcherm 12y ago
> It's perfectly fine never to respond to any email sent there. That's not what the decision says.
- Tomte 12y ago
  That's correct, that's my interpretation of the law. But it's a minor point in the grounds, it's dicta at best.