I'm german, i read the ruling, here's details picked out of the document while reading through it. Feel free to ask if there's something that could be double-ch

I'm german, i read the ruling, here's details picked out of the document while reading through it. Feel free to ask if there's something that could be double-checked for. - The suing party is a german group whose officially recognized reason for existence is to protect customer rights. - If Google doesn't fix this, up to 250k€ per instance of violation (sadly not clarified what instance means), or jail up to 6 months (sic) or jail up to 6 months. (Unclear how that is supposed to be done.) - Google has to pay 200€ + 5% interest, starting on 13.12.2013. (I don't know over which timeframe this interest accrues.) - Google has to pay all process costs, as it's the losing party. - Google offers services which it runs as a business, either by reserving the right to use customer data in a business manner (hangouts, docs, calendar) or by advertising (search, do note that TV broadcasting for example is a business with customers too). - Google is required to make it possible to reach individual personal contact with a human employee at Google. - The court recognizes and has discussed with Google that the problems of scale here are very real, but still insists on the fact that the current solution is not acceptable. - The court even offers suggestions, such as providing multiple email adresses in the impressum to aid in channeling. - Crucial to the court is that pointing at an online form is not enough, especially since the pointing is done at a maze of help pages which may, or may not, lead to an online form. - The court recognizes that the law does not specify how the company has to communicate once person-to-person communication is established. - The court recognizes that "not answering" is also a valid reaction, if and when a human employee has read/heard the request; BUT ONLY IF that kind of answer is not the rule. - The court recognizes that efficient communication is not done by answering quickly, but by answering in a reasonable time frame and with detail according to the reasonable expectations of a user. (Thus implying that users may have unreasonable expectations which need not be fulfilled.) - The court also recognizes that not all emails need to be read. The problem is that none are read. Google may filter and channel emails as it likes, as long as the system's goal is explicitly to enable communication via email; not as it currently is, to deny communication.