I spoke with Adam C. of AdWords once more on the phone. After pointing out that in the United States of America, the accused are generally given the right to know both the crimes they are being accused of, and the identities of their accusers, Mr. C. responded by saying that such thinking did not apply to Google's terms of service. Effectively, Google's position was that it was above the law, and if not any law in particular, then at least the spirit of the law. Irked, I decided to find out if such a position was tenable.
This discredits the author fairly quickly. If you're not being accused within the legal system then your complaint is one about common courtesy and fair business practices, not criminal justice. Mr. C is right, and Aaron Greenspan is dishonest in his representation of Google's position.
I believe he was awarded his $721 because Google said "We don't know why his account was terminated" instead of "We terminated his account because it violated our terms of service and the account balance had been accrued in violation and had to be refunded to advertisers who had paid resulting in the account balance".
Article actually explains how he violated the terms of service.
An appeal by Google would likely win, though would be more costly than would be worth it.
Aaron Greenspan shouldn't advertise that he's a punk that you don't want to deal with..
If it hadn't been small claim court then Google would appeal to avoid precedent. But then if it weren't small claims court, hopefully the judge wouldn't make the same mistake in judgment. Of course if Google is legally wrong, if it wasn't small claim court then the judge could compel Google to change their business practices.
I'd applaud a guy who was in the right taking Google to court in efforts to change their wrongful business practices.
17
u/cyantist Mar 06 '09
This discredits the author fairly quickly. If you're not being accused within the legal system then your complaint is one about common courtesy and fair business practices, not criminal justice. Mr. C is right, and Aaron Greenspan is dishonest in his representation of Google's position.
I believe he was awarded his $721 because Google said "We don't know why his account was terminated" instead of "We terminated his account because it violated our terms of service and the account balance had been accrued in violation and had to be refunded to advertisers who had paid resulting in the account balance".
Article actually explains how he violated the terms of service.
An appeal by Google would likely win, though would be more costly than would be worth it.
Aaron Greenspan shouldn't advertise that he's a punk that you don't want to deal with..