Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

discuss.ai.google.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 752 posts

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#461

Post by lelanthran »

meling wrote: post #418
sowbug wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are in violent agreement about that point. Where we seem to disagree is that I don't think they're entitled to also keep the customer's annual subscription payment when they've decided they want out of the contract.

What happens if the customer ask his credit card company to do a chargeback?

> What happens if the customer ask his credit card company to do a chargeback?

Then google will presumably perma-ban that user (and all accounts for that user) across all its services (gmail, etc).

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#462

Post by agentifysh »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #157

So a Google AI pro/ultra account is intended to be used from their cli or tools (like their open-gravity agent front end). Their API usage isn't included in these plans, although under the hood open-gravity uses the API. People have been using the API auth credential intended for anti-gravity with open claw, presumably causing a significant amount of use and have been caught. The Google admin tools and process haven’…

so far i've been able to use gemini pro just fine from codex cli using my web session mcp bridge: https://github.com/agentify-sh/desktop

it seems like the main problem with OpenCode and OpenClaw is that they call the API directly bypassing the website

my approach is browser automation, its technically against the ToS too but there's default mechanisms to avoid unintentional mass spam.

I think what pissed off Google and Anthropic was that people were running through multiple accounts from OpenCode and ruined it for everybody else

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#463

Post by Marsymars »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #382
jacquesm wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in this case the subsidy is paid for by tied sales from other users that don't actually use the service, which is another illegal business practice.

So cable bundling channels is also “illegal” according to you? Since I don’t watch sports?

There certainly are jurisdictions where tv providers are legally required to offer channels a la carte.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#464

Post by moontear »

anon84873628 wrote: post #340
bethekind wrote: post #15

This is draconian. > Our investigation specifically confirmed that the use of your credentials within the third-party tool “open claw” for testing purposes constitutes a violation of the Google Terms of Service [1]. This is due to the use of Antigravity servers to power a non-Antigravity product. I must be transparent and inform you that, in accordance with Google’s policy, this situation falls under a zero tolerance…

Can you help me understand which of these happened? 1) Open Claw has a Google OAuth client id that users are signing in with. (This seems unlikely because why would Google have approved the client or not banned it) 2) Users are creating their own OAuth client id for signing themselves into Open Claw. (Again, why would these clients be able to use APIs Google doesn't want them to?) 3) Users are taking a token minted w…

"how does Google figure out it happened" - no insider knowledge, but the calls Claw makes are very different than the regular IDE, so the calls and volume alone would be an indicator. Maybe Google has even updated their Antigravity IDEs to just include some other User Agent, that Claw auth does not have.

Everything just guesswork, but I don't think it is too hard to figure out whether it is Antigravity calling the APIs or any Claw.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#465

Post by nubg »

christianqchung wrote: post #329
adamq_q wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How to solve the increasing frequency of AI generated posts on HN

You can't. Either people will say you're overreacting to stylistic choices and that it's not AI, or that it's AI but a good comment (it's not), or that it's AI and a bad comment, but you should just ignore it like any other spam.

Literally unwinnable for honest people it seems.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#466

Post by lelanthran »

ninjagoo wrote: post #277
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Terms of Service that span multiple pages of legalese and require an attorney to parse, for something that is either 'free' or a few $ per month, and can result in loss of service across multiple product lines, AND has binding lopsided arbitration requirements, is not only draconian, it is unconscionable . Look at how messed up this is: Google Attorneys, paid hundreds of $/hour, spending hours and hours putting toget…

> Terms of Service that span multiple pages of legalese and require an attorney to parse, for something that is either 'free' or a few $ per month, and can result in loss of service across multiple product lines, AND has binding lopsided arbitration requirements, is not only draconian, it is unconscionable.

In the general case, I broadly agree, but in this specific case:

1. This wasn't a term buried 2/3rds in a 200 page document. It was a term that was so upfront and clear that everyone knew you weren't supposed to do it.

2. Even for the people who claim they didn't know, when doing the auth, the message specifically asks the user to authorise the antigravity application, not the OpenClaw application.

The argument that users did not know they were violating ToS, in this specific case, is pure BS.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#467

Post by Marsymars »

jacquesm wrote: post #315
causal wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But banning accounts wholesale is not going to earn them more customers. They could have just disabled Gemini access, or even given a warning first. I don't use OpenClaw, I do pay hundreds per month for AI subscriptions, and I will not be giving that money to Google while they treat their customers like this.

> They could have just disabled Gemini access Yes, please!

Hah, yeah, I'm seriously considering downgrading my Google Home Premium subscription to avoid the Gemini features on my Nest cameras.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#468

Post by renegat0x0 »

tabs_or_spaces wrote: post #319

So the timeline is basically * User uses Google oauth to integrate their open claw * user gets banned from using Google AI services with no warning * user still gets charged If you go backwards, getting charged for services you can't access is rough. I feel sorry for those who are deeply integrated into Google services or getting banned on their main accounts. It's not a great situation. Also, getting banned without…

I think as a society we miss some kind of 'laws', or 'rules' around accounts and banning.

I feel that sometimes corporations have all 3 montesquieu powers. Google can define eulas, decide if you should be punished, and apply a ban.

Can a shop decide who to serve? I may be wrong, but big tech should not be able to 'just close' accounts, or demonetize accounts on their whim.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#469

Post by moontear »

therealmarv wrote: post #132
bethekind wrote: post #15

This is draconian. > Our investigation specifically confirmed that the use of your credentials within the third-party tool “open claw” for testing purposes constitutes a violation of the Google Terms of Service [1]. This is due to the use of Antigravity servers to power a non-Antigravity product. I must be transparent and inform you that, in accordance with Google’s policy, this situation falls under a zero tolerance…

How about giving the user a big warning to not do that and then block the account if the user continues. This total blocks are crazy. Especially for people who use their Google account for 20+ years or something.

Time and time again it is shown to *not* use your main account for everything. This goes for Apple and having a separate account for development work, for the App Store and your main iCloud account but this also goes for all other SaaS providers.

You are doing groundbreaking new and untested stuff with Claw? Do not use your main account. You want to access your main account's data? Sure, allow it via OAUTH/whatever possible way.

Have separate accounts, people. You don't want one product groups decision in those large SaaS corps to impact everything else.

Re: Google restricting Google AI Pro/Ultra subscribers for using OpenClaw

#470

Post by lelanthran »

fruitworks wrote: post #100
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes; because they have no obligation to provide this service tier at all. It could be API prices for anyone, everywhere. They offer a discounted plan, $200/mo., for a restricted set of use cases. Abuse that at your peril. It’s like complaining your phone’s unlimited data plan is insufficient to run an apartment building with all units. I was told it was Unlimited! That means I can totally run 500 units through it if…

You can run an entire apartment block off of a single sim card/phone line. The (technical) problem is that you are purchasing an insufficient amount of bandwidth. It goes without saying that a limited bandwidth integrated over a finite service period comes out to a limited amount of data, so the term is misleading. If google has no obligation to provide the service tier, then they should stop providing it instead of…

> Service providers don't have the right to discriminate what their service is used for.

They frequently do have those rights, though. It's up to the paying customer to either pay for a different tier or move to a competitor who offers the tier they need.

You are never going to get a court to agree that service providers cannot offer different tiers, or segment their offerings.

Post reply on HN