[heptathorp]

> I had created a Google Developer Account simply so I could pass on the login details to my app developers who uploaded and updated the app via my account each time.

Sounds like one of those developers was previously banned for violating ToS and Google suspects the author is the same person with a new account trying to evade the ban. Instead of sharing login details, the correct thing to do is add a user and give them permission to upload. Not let them pretend to be you.

The situation sucks but Google's action seems reasonable? Like they can't just let people create new accounts to evade bans.

[BinaryIdiot]

> The situation sucks but Google's action seems reasonable? Like they can't just let people create new accounts to evade bans.

It seems like the opposite of reasonable to me. You hit the nail on the head for _why_ this happened but this person now has _zero_ recourse for correcting their mistake.

Yes, they screwed up. They shouldn't have let them do it through their account. But now, because they screwed up, you're fine with the action that they can literally never be on the Google Play store ever again? The largest mobile store with the largest share of phones and you can't be on the store because of this?

Absolutely unacceptable.

[HillaryBriss]

> ... they can literally never be on the Google Play store ever again

question: is Google really that good at detecting the relationship between an account they banned, and some other new account created under a different name with someone else's credit card?

i mean couldn't this small business get another credit card under a different name and then create a totally new developer account under a different name -- and keep that all totally isolated from the previously banned account?

is that just not practically possible? if it worked at least initially -- what would they have to lose?

[BinaryIdiot]

I mean, even if it is possible, it's against the ToS and if they find out you're gone again.

[on_and_off]

It seems reasonable to me as well.

So far 99% of the people I have seen complaining about their account being suspended were unwilling to read the ToS, even less to try to comply with them.

I am pretty sure that the review process does mistakes as well, but as always bad actors spoil everything for everybody.

FWIW, I had 2 apps removed from the play store earlier this month. They were all based on the same codebase (different flavors) and were banned for using a forbidden permission (after asking it to the user of course).

I was super surprised since when I coded the feature using that permission, it was legal to use it. The rules have changed since then and I had pushed an update to remove the use of that permission (to be honest it was not that necessary, it just made the UX a bit smoother in one case).

BUT I did not realize that for these 2 apps, I had retained apks in the play store for lower api levels with the faulty code :///

(I use an upload script to gain some time .. multiple apks take a long time to upload for each update otherwise; so I don't see the play store console often)

Still; I was clearly in the wrong.

I just removed the faulty retained apps and was again in the play store a couple of hours later.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> unwilling to read the ToS, even less to try to comply with them.

So... a sane human being? Someone who can't afford to spend literally hours reading legalese and trying to figure out what it means?

[qwertox]

This is in a business context. If you think you don't have to read the TOS, then you better have your lawyers doing that for you.

[dmix]

Now back to the real world...

[Operyl]

How is reading a legally binding contract with regards to your business not a real world expectation?

[pas]

In a lot of jurisdictions a contract that you were not able to negotiate properly is simply void.

Sure, a ToS is different, and there's basically an implicit contract when you buy a service, but that doesn't mean that the ToS is all powerful. It can be still unfair practice. (Some jurisdictions have that too.)

Now of course courts can't really force G to do business with you, but as others mentioned they can be sued for damages.

[noonespecial]

Right. Now imagine how it would feel if you made your entire living off those apps, the ban was for life, and they didn't even bother to explain to you what you did wrong.

Many people are in this exact situation. That is why they are upset.

[wolfi1]

I guess that would be a proper reason to use the word 'kafkaesque'

[ehsankia]

And most people don't see the other side of the coin, which is that millions of bad actors are trying to break this exact system. When you start doing suspicious things like that, you look exactly like the scammers trying to evade bans.

[HillaryBriss]

> ... when I coded the feature using that permission, it was legal to use it.

was it related to SMS?

[on_and_off]

Indeed !

In retrospect it was a mistake even when it was in the ToS. It needs way too much precautions : warn the user and explain what we do, have them accept the permission, handle the case where some phones need 'phone state' (because no way we ask that one, too frightening and powerful).

If you are not a SMS app, just open the default one (if there is one) with a pre-filled message.

[ben_jones]

Reminds me of how gaming accounts are frequently banned for automation or similar cheating, only to pull at heart strings saying they were hacked and that they themselves did not commit the cheating. With VPNs and similar tools it can be difficult for the moderator to know for sure so bad actors take advantage of the situation. As a result you get a painful margin of error the is difficult to reduce without significant changes to the system.

I'm not on Google's side, look at my post history, but there are always two sides to a story.

[tapland]

I've never heard of such a case in gaming resulting in the person being unbanned, but maybe it's a newer development?

[ben_jones]

My experience comes from a specific niche: MMORPG botting which using an automation script to train/goldfarm for the account while the player is not at the computer. This is coupled with a large amount of account scamming/hacking such that it is fairly reasonable that someone might have stolen your account and botted on it for their own gains.

[arkitaip]

Or maybe those devs were unfairly banned because another bullshit reason. Unfortunately we don't know because Google operates in the most opaque ways.

[virgilp]

This is also what I find most infuriating. One should at least be able to receive compelling evidence of what lead to the banning decision, and get a fair chance to dispute it.

I understand Google doesn't want to give bad actors information that could help them avoid the counter-measures, but the side effects on people who are innocent or make minor errors are too severe. They could make the whole process lengthy, and require proper, detailed authentication to make sure it's different persons & companies each time - that adds enough cost to deter bad actors from using the "appeals" process, but it would save honest people from the frustration.

[Dylan16807]

A lifetime ban because they suspect an account was shared is not "reasonable". One person at most deserves a permanent ban, and it's not the OP. A state/national ID card should be enough to clear things up and solve the "can't just let people create new accounts" problem.