[TomMarius]

Are they getting hurt? I guess not. No one has any right to Google services[0]. Google has every right to refuse service to anyone[0]. What if they decided to close shop altogether?

Note that locking them e.g. out of a phone they bought before the ban is something different - that would be a breach of contract from Google side.

[0] unless there is an existing contract

[lovich]

When a company has an almost complete monopoly and they decide to bar someone from service, how is that not hurting them?

If you run a website that earns revenue based on incoming users and Google cuts you off, how is that not damaging you? You could use every single competitor and still not even get a quarter as much traffic as Google.

[TomMarius]

Hurting and damaging as in violence.

What if Google closed shop? Would you force them to reopen again? What if Google never existed?

[xg15]

If this is supposed to lead to the NAP, physical violence is not the only way a person's agency can be restricted or living quality can be reduced. (What I would define as "hurt" here)

[xg15]

> Are they getting hurt? I guess not.

I absolutely disagree. In Google's case, their service have become an integral part to using the internet - and the internet has become an integral part of daily life. So such a block would absolutely have consequences.

> Note that locking them e.g. out of a phone they bought before the ban is something different - that would be a breach of contract from Google side.

Then it would as well be breach of contract to lock me out of the Play Store until I agreed to an updated ToS. Apparently this can still be done if the old ToS contains the right clauses. So I suspect the phone ban would work similarly.