[warbler73]

> The Dad has legal path(s) to take if he feels he was truly wronged. Paths that would ultimately cost nothing if he prevailed. Paths that would likely force Google to undo their decision if Dad's statements are in fact the truth and Google has no other data/evidence.

San Francisco Police Department:

> “I determined that the incident did not meet the elements of a crime and that no crime occurred,” Mr. Hillard wrote in his report. The police had access to all the information Google had on Mark and decided it did not constitute child abuse or exploitation.

What more do you want from him Alupis? He was exonerated but you are suggesting he did not "do any of that" (false) to clear his name. Why would you say this given the article already rules it out?

[Alupis]

He should use the legal system for what it was designed for - to settle a disagreement as per the ToS for his paid Google One account. The article even says this is an option - but he chose not to pursue it.

[lamontcg]

Because pursuing it would cost money and time for a service from a company that I'm sure he doesn't want to do any more business with. He's unlikely to get any damages and Google's lawyers will ensure that it takes way too much time.

"If they were innocent, why didn't they sue" is an opinion that is really naive of how our legal system works.

[Alupis]

The article is a little clumsy here... they seem to indicate it would have been a lawsuit, but the dollar amount quoted would be more in line with arbitration.

In both cases there's 3 possible outcomes:

1) Google, after reviewing weak and/or zero evidence, backs down and restores the account upon receipt of notice of intent to pursue legal action.

2) Arbitration happens and Google is ordered to back down, restore the account and pay Dad's representation fees.

3) Arbitration happens and Dad loses, which yes would be quite costly.

Only #3 is a gamble, and it seems like Dad has a lot of confidence #3 isn't even a remote possibility. So why would you not pursue legal action?

Given how much attention Dad has received over this, it would be surprising if free representation wasn't throwing themselves at him by now too. Regardless, this is indeed how the legal system works for disputes. He should use it if he really is innocent.

[lamontcg]

> So why would you not pursue legal action?

Hassle.

Some people would prefer to just have a clean break from any abusive relationship rather than continue to engage in conflict, even if the odds are good they'd win.

You also don't know what else is going on in his life and how much bandwidth he has left. One terminally sick relative is all it'll take for the average person to not want to deal with extra bullshit in their life.

And most people don't have their own personal legal department and may not even know a single lawyer, so they don't have any idea of who to trust. If a dozen lawyers called me up and offered their services the first headache I'm having is that I don't know if any of them are trustworthy, and now I need to waste my time vetting them.

[Alupis]

The guy has gone through multiple police investigations - one of which appears to have been voluntary - plus this investigative article piece here. I'd say, from appearances, he's not shied away from attempting to fight this. He even stated in the article it was the money that made him choose not to pursue the legal path (although as previously pointed out, the costs would be free if he prevailed and there's free representation that would jump at the chance to fight cases like this).

So, I don't think hassle can accurately describe this particular case.

[lamontcg]

He went through multiple police investigations to clear his name of criminal wrongdoing, which has much higher stakes.

If he sues he's likely getting a pittance from whatever the court values his Google account to be worth. In reality this is never going to be a multi-million dollar award.

And I don't know what it is that you imagine he's done wrong which isn't criminal but which would allow Google to defend themselves. If it is anything I think it is more likely that he got legal advice that based on Google's TOS and the things that he agreed to (like we all do every time a legal notice pops up) that his chances of recovering any damages at all were a crapshoot.