[jqpabc123]

a limit on liability, does not mean there is a limit on damages and tort.

This is exactly what Google intends it to mean. Good luck convincing a judge otherwise.

In some places, the fact there is no signed contract and no exchange took place (free tier) means there is no liability --- the user received everything they paid for.

[withinboredom]

If I ask you to hold my phone and say “don’t blame me if it breaks” and we agree. Then you deliberately smash my phone, you caused me a damage and broke the terms of the contract. In this imaginary case, there was an implied agreement that you would hold the phone, but you didn’t. You smashed it. You aren’t protected from your liability agreement because it no longer applies.

This same thing applies here. Intellectual property has value. Google agreed to hold that value and not delete it. They stopped holding the property and smashed it. Their liability clause no longer works because they broke the contract. It doesn’t matter if money changed hands or not. Damage is damage.

I’m not a lawyer, I don’t know shit.