Well correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have maintained that since it's a free service one should not expect reliable access or even a dime to be spent in dire circumstances outside your control; and you have further argued that Google is telling us the same thing in the terms (however inefficient the medium).
If it is or were the case, that Gmail is not even supposed to be reliable, then might be very pretty and convenient as you please (hence, not a smelly pile of crap, as one might believe from the terms) but still ultimately bad for most people. Particularly the people who are least equipped to judge the risks or recover from the mistake, because IMAP is Greek to them.
So even as apology for Google I think this is a fruitless line of argument, no disrespect intended. I do respect your opinions.
My own feelings are more nuanced than what I think you are probably fighting hardest against (round condemnation of Google as evil, or Gmail as unusable). I personally think there are safe and constructive uses for Gmail, cigarettes, hard liquor, cars, pornography and pistols and informed adults should have ready access to all these. But I think as a matter of personal conscience it's better not to be a dick, and it's better long-term business, and I'm not against leverage being applied to make Google iron out this procedure or be more firmly up-front with the scary disclaimers that probably should be scaring away people who are not wise consenting adults. Again assuming that Gmail is operating on this sort of Libertarian-style principle that they are not even slightly and socially obligated to provide reliable service no matter how much they promote the product for wide and general use.