Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by xoa 1616 days ago
I saw some talk of "class action" in previous threads. I'm REALLY skeptical. What I posted on Ars:

"Pitch" is not a contract. If you saved the terms of service when you signed up, please post it and show that Google promised that it would be available forever, for free. But it wasn't. Here's the actual Google Workspace (Free) Agreement [0]. You will note that, as is standard for online service contracts, they reserved the right to both modify the Service and Terms at any time ("1.2 Modifications") and it's expressly terminable at will (emphasis added): Quote: 10. Termination.

10.1 By Customer. Customer may discontinue use of the Service at any time.

10.2 By Google. Customer agrees that Google may at any time and for any reason terminate this Agreement and/or terminate the provision of all or any portion of the Service. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Google will provide at least thirty (30) days notice to Customer prior to terminating or suspending the Service; provided that the Service may be terminated immediately if (i) Customer has breached this Agreement or (ii) Google reasonably determines that it is commercially impractical to continue providing the Service in light of applicable laws.

10.3 Effects of Termination. If this Agreement terminates, then: (i) the rights granted by one party to the other will cease immediately (except as set forth in this Section); (ii) Google will provide Customer access to, and the ability to export, the Customer Data for a commercially reasonable period of time; and (iii) after a commercially reasonable period of time, Google will delete Customer Data by removing pointers to it on Google's active servers and overwriting it over time.

They've provided way more than 30 days, they're fine. Nobody sane promises forever but even if they do, contracts are governed by law and in general law (at least in the US) is very uncomfortable with perpetual contracts [1]. It's not always impossible to legally spell out perpetual but it usually has to be very specific and has serious requirements. There is lots of case law around this. An indefinite end term doesn't mean perpetual, on the contrary it is read as at-will since there is no end date. Google's ToS will be governed under California law and the 9th Circuit, and AFAIK it has to be specific there too, Shannon v. Civil Service Employees Ins. Union, 169 Cal. App. 2d 79, 337 P.2d 136, 138 (1959). [2]: Quote: Contracts for life or in perpetuity will only be upheld when the intention is clearly expressed in unequivocal terms, and courts are prone to hold against the theory that a contract infers a perpetuity of right or imposes a perpetuity of obligation, and they will only construe a contract to impose such an obligation when the written document itself compels the construction and none other. Contracts for life--and that is what is contended for here--are so unusual as to have been, with rare exceptions, condemned by the courts as unreasonable and unauthorized.

"Because of the unusual nature of life or perpetual agreements, the length and permanence of the obligation undertaken, the various unforeseeable events and conditions which may be encountered on such a journey in the future, and the unpredictable effects upon the parties, special precautions have been decreed essential, both as to consideration and the terms of employment, in construing and enforcing the compact. The responsibility assumed and the obligations imposed will be neither created nor spelled out by mere inference when they are not clearly and unequivocally expressed in the contract itself."

People on the internet have very weird ideas about law. Further, the remedy in civil law is about "making each party whole" and the courts in general loath specific performance. Normally remedy is about damages which can be covered with money. Maybe maybe maybe (not really) someone could squeeze out some switching cost, but no court is going to order Google to keep providing service that could be found elsewhere.

----

0: https://web.archive.org/web/20201031044304/https://workspace...

1: https://privateequity.weil.com/glenn-west-musings/forever-lo...

2: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2d/1...

3 comments

As the article mentions, the suit would be about purchases (such as media or apps) tied to the account and identity. If google is forcing users to pay again to use things that users already paid for unless they subscribe to google's new plan, that sounds like a legitimate suit.
But Google isn't doing that. You aren't losing access to your purchases. So I'm still a little puzzled as to the grounds for this suit.
If I want to upgrade only one account, then I can't just "cancel" the service. This means I must delete all other accounts, losing purchases on them. It's an all or nothing thing.
Article seemed much broader complaints than just purchases, though of course it's second hand reporting of whatever the firm is actually going after. Purchases at least might plausibly represent damages. But I'm still extremely skeptical at this point that the whole "license" thing for software is going to switch back in a highly pro-consumer way. It sounds to me more like something that I (and many others) wish was mandated by law, but isn't. Google's ToS looks pretty normal, and everyone buying from them would be governed by it same as all the other software stores.

I wish them luck on that front at least, and morally it's really shitty for Google not to have a transfer mechanism for going between accounts. It is for Apple and everyone else like that too, absolute bullshit. And if it pressures Google to do the right thing even if they'd win then for once that'd be to the good. But while there is lots of outrage legally I'm still really skeptical.

Especially if Google's terms said "Google will provide Customer access to, and the ability to export, the Customer Data for a commercially reasonable period of time".
A class action might be effective even though the ToS explicitly stated they could do this. The lawsuit could easily be expensive enough that it might be cheaper for Google to just build a migration process than actually fight it.
> "Pitch" is not a contract.

But false advertising is definitely a thing one can sue over. And bait and switch might be subject to FTC fines.

>But false advertising is definitely a thing one can sue over

I'm sorry but no, a 2006 blog post or something (which itself had caveats fwiw) doesn't rise to the level of overriding clear ToS for an ongoing service. There was no bait-and-switch here in the slightest, people got what they (didn't) pay for, and could not reasonably rely on it being "forever" anyway. Perpetual contracts are a matter of actual long standing California law and long standing court coverage.

Google should in the next 6-18 months (July for the service, but apparently first year is free on signing up for paid?) figure out a better offramp. Congress should make purchase transfers within a service the law too, much more important surgical measure than some of the silliness they're going on about with platforms. But Google isn't going to face any "false advertising" or "bait and switch" fines for this and shouldn't.

It definitely should. It is externalizing an astronomical cost. I am not a lawyer, so I can't comment on the law. As a citizen in a democracy, I can comment on what the law ought to be, though.