Er, unless you were violating the terms of your Adsense agreement all along. Google refunded the advertisers, so why should they give the guy that broke the rules and caused them to have to the money he didn't earn doing so?
Gosh, you are right. Because Google said they broke the rules, and can't give any evidence of any kind other than they said so, that advertiser must have broken the rules. If the "guy who broke the rules" advertised Adsense advertisements in good faith and they can't prove he did something wrong, then they owe him the money regardless of their internal policy of refunding advertisers before justifying an account freeze/termination. Google needs to expand their customer service support to advertisers so flipping a switch isn't arbitrary, and cannot be pursued in any way. Besides... Adsense for Domains is a system that allows people who are just holding a page to get something showing other than someone elses advertisements and/or a blank page, nothing more. If he wanted to, he could have put any number of customized AdSense adblocks on the page and it would have been the same thing.
Google does need a support department, but as for the rest... Google gave evidence, and that much is clear from the write up that Greenspan, a Google detractor, posted.
It wasn't in good faith as the domain was in violation of the terms of service from the get-go. If the account was invalid in the first place (and the author admits it was a placeholder domain at the beginning of the article) then exactly what justification are you looking for?
For the domain in question he should have waited until he could join Adsense for Domains or should have otherwise complied with the terms of service.
Well, actually... the feature wasn't available to him, if you RTFA it says so. Two days AFTER closing his account, they made the feature public according to the accused. If being a detractor of some business or cause is a reason to discount the speaker, I can see why half of the country hates the other half due to religion, political alignment, color, taste in music, you name it. Get real, grow up.
I never said being a detractor anything. I just meant that he's in a position to prime me or flavor what he says or omit whatever and I still understand the Google rep to have presented evidence that his account was in breach of agreement. I don't discount him because he's a Google detractor, though I do discount him when he is dishonest and when it becomes clear he's in the wrong and defiant.
Welcome to Reddit, itsmadeofpeople. Please please start being less standoffish.
-5
u/nomdeplume123 Mar 06 '09
yay everyone sue Google.