[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.

[netheril96]

Still, you have to read TOS first to understand which part is definitely enforceable and which part isn’t. Ignoring it completely is foolish for a business.

[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.