The fact that this guy didn't even say the name of his apps or what they do makes me pretty suspicious of the whole thing. There are enough developers who don't add any value but instead rely on spam, malware or piracy/copyright infringement to get big. I have zero sympathy in those cases, and support Google and Apple taking action against them.
Google cancels Google Play publisher account and ends family’s source of income
181–190 of 279 posts
Re: Google cancels Google Play publisher account and ends family’s source of income
#182Not saying Google is in the right here by any means, but I'm a bit suspicious of these complaints where the party curiously omits the details of why they were banned, the nature of their previous earnings, etc.
> I'm a bit suspicious of these complaints where the party curiously omits the details of why they were banned I read it as the dev had no warning or explanation.
The image of the email he did post says he received previous emails with the reason.
Re: Google cancels Google Play publisher account and ends family’s source of income
#183a. does the OP have any idea of why they were booted?
b. were there previous emails about breaking terms of service?
c. what are the apps in question and:
1. were they culling personal data and selling it?
2. were they doing something else cringe-worthy?
3. did the apps have a bait and switch quality?
4. were in-app purchases targeted at kids?
The OP has not explained everything they need to in order to garner real sympathy here. I'd love to get on the bandwagon with pitchforks, but the OP hasn't demonstrated enough to do that.
Re: Google cancels Google Play publisher account and ends family’s source of income
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They will have to respond to this Why? If they think they have the right to terminate your account, and you have no standing, why would you expect them not to ignore your lawyer in the very same way they ignore you? Taking this to court might get their attention, but you also have to show grounds for why you get to override their decision. IANAL, but I don't see why Google isn't allowed to just say "nope, you're ou…
> > They will have to respond to this > Why? They don't have to respond to the demand letter, but they do have to respond if a lawsuit if one is filed. If they don't, it's a default judgement for the plaintiff. (This is one of the things that is broken in the American legal system. You can force someone to spend a lot of money by suing them even if your complaint has no merit.) So while they don't have to respond to…
It's not prudent unless it's likely to both happen and succeed.
Not only is "I'll sue you" often just bluster, if they already think they're in the right —and I'm yet to understand that they're not— they'll be betting that you're not actually going to risk paying their legal fees to make a faulty argument in court.
In making that bet, only lose out by having their legal team engage with you. That's expensive. In a low risk scenario, it's easier and cheaper to wait until it actually counts.
Re: Google cancels Google Play publisher account and ends family’s source of income
#185I still think some congress person needs to pass a consumer rights bill that forces companies like this to disclose the exact reason and data relating the account termination. The excuse of security practices should not come before consumer rights. Frankly, we would ALL also be safer if the decision had to be made based on conduct on that specific service and could not include anything outside that service. There is…
Never going to happen for the same reason companies don't tell you why your job application was rejected because it opens them up to unnecessary liability.
You dont really lose if you a job application is rejected, you can get a job somewhere else. You cant do that when there only 2 players who control mobile Apps.
Re: Google cancels Google Play publisher account and ends family’s source of income
#186I was that “let’s use google cloud” guy, but more recently after so many horror stories like this I’m more of a “let’s not use google cloud” guy. I rarely see people complaining about AWS or Azure on HN
Re: Google cancels Google Play publisher account and ends family’s source of income
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They will have to respond to this Why? If they think they have the right to terminate your account, and you have no standing, why would you expect them not to ignore your lawyer in the very same way they ignore you? Taking this to court might get their attention, but you also have to show grounds for why you get to override their decision. IANAL, but I don't see why Google isn't allowed to just say "nope, you're ou…
> > They will have to respond to this > Why? They don't have to respond to the demand letter, but they do have to respond if a lawsuit if one is filed. If they don't, it's a default judgement for the plaintiff. (This is one of the things that is broken in the American legal system. You can force someone to spend a lot of money by suing them even if your complaint has no merit.) So while they don't have to respond to…
> they do have to respond if a lawsuit if one is filed. If they don't, it's a default judgement for the plaintiff.
Google's response will be very cheap for them, compared to the cost for the plaintiff (meaning, as a percentage of their respective incomes): that they have no legal obligation to provide the plaintiff any services whatever, and that the terms of service for the Google service the plaintiff was using clearly state that Google can terminate the account whenever it wants. Google's lawyers probably have a template for such a response all ready to go. The cost of this to Google won't even be rounding error in their financials.
Re: Google cancels Google Play publisher account and ends family’s source of income
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > They will have to respond to this > Why? They don't have to respond to the demand letter, but they do have to respond if a lawsuit if one is filed. If they don't, it's a default judgement for the plaintiff. (This is one of the things that is broken in the American legal system. You can force someone to spend a lot of money by suing them even if your complaint has no merit.) So while they don't have to respond to…
How is it broken to require a defendant to respond to a lawsuit?
Because an innocent person can be bankrupted by repeatedly having to respond to frivolous lawsuits.
Re: Google cancels Google Play publisher account and ends family’s source of income
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > They will have to respond to this > Why? They don't have to respond to the demand letter, but they do have to respond if a lawsuit if one is filed. If they don't, it's a default judgement for the plaintiff. (This is one of the things that is broken in the American legal system. You can force someone to spend a lot of money by suing them even if your complaint has no merit.) So while they don't have to respond to…
How is it broken to require a defendant to respond to a lawsuit?
[deleted]
Re: Google cancels Google Play publisher account and ends family’s source of income
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > They will have to respond to this > Why? They don't have to respond to the demand letter, but they do have to respond if a lawsuit if one is filed. If they don't, it's a default judgement for the plaintiff. (This is one of the things that is broken in the American legal system. You can force someone to spend a lot of money by suing them even if your complaint has no merit.) So while they don't have to respond to…
How is it broken to require a defendant to respond to a lawsuit?
Not that concept, just our specific implementation.
If person A decides they don't like you, they can sue you over and over and cost you tens of thousands of dollars and never get that back. If you don't reply to each with a lawyer and spend time and money fighting, you lose even more money.
There are some bandaids like having someone declared a vexatious litigant, but that also requires time and money. If you owned some small business, someone could certainly bankrupt you before you could stop them.
I don't know exactly what a solution looks like, but I do see this as a problem.