|
I'm not really prescribing a solution, just identifying a class of problem. However, that said, here's an idea: I'd like to see Google forced to provide a minimum level of support to their customers and suppliers. For example, if they decide to cut someone off (as in this case) then they must explain their decision with a certain minimum level of detail. I'd also like to see a formal appeals system, possibly with an independent ombudsman as a court of final appeal. This kind of enforced service level is common in the UK. Banks, utilities, insurance companies, etc. all have similar conflict resolution regimes. Usually paid for by the industry itself, via (mandatory) fees. Obviously in Google's case, their profit per customer can be very low, so I think if would be reasonable to expect complainants pay for the cost of failed appeals. That would keep a tight lid on frivolous complaints, but provide a fair avenue for more serious grievances to be resolved. Far more importantly, it would encourage Google to pay closer attention to their day-to-day automated communications, which currently feel like half-finished student projects. I'm pretty sure that with the right incentives, Google could resolve 99% of the ill-feeling against them by simply putting more effort into this part of their business. |
When you say that regulation is needed, you are prescribing a solution.
WRT to your proposal, how would that help in this case? The developer would just pay the fee, and Google would tell them "you broke the 'Google Play Developer Program Policies' agreement, which says you can't use third-party payment providers".
In fact, the developer says Google gave the official reason, so what would be the purpose of paying to get the same answer?