[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.

[Alupis]

We don't need to speculate - the article discusses his legal options. He explicitly chose not to pursue it for what he claims was the cost.

There is no multi-million dollar award - this isn't a TV Show or something.

Arbitration would determine, after examining all facts presented by both parties, if his account should be re-instated. Further, if his account is ordered to be re-instated, he would be awarded "reasonable attorney's fees", which would cover the cost of any legal representation he hired to argue his case.

So yes, he needed to pursue the legal path here, but chose not to. The quoted dollar amount in the article is peanuts, and like previously stated over and over, if he's so certain of his innocence and has all this supporting evidence, arbitration would ultimately cost nothing. ie. there's no reason to not pursue the legal path here.

[warbler73]

> if he's so certain of his innocence and has all this supporting evidence

The claim is that he is a child pornographer and has taken sexually explicit photos of children for prurient purposes. There is no evidence of this and if Google had it they should report the evidence.

You instead keep repeating things like "if he's so certain of his innocence and has all this supporting evidence...", implying that since he is not suing Google that there must be something to this.

Your shtick here reminds me of Musk's accusations of pedophilia against Vernon Unsworth.