Google could face class action lawsuit over free G Suite legacy account shutdown
I saw some talk of &quot;class action&quot; in previous threads. I&#x27;m REALLY skeptical. What I posted on Ars:<p>&quot;Pitch&quot; is not a contract. If you saved the terms of service when you signed up, please post it and show that Google promised that it would be available forever, for free. But it wasn&#x27;t. Here&#x27;s the actual Google Workspace (Free) Agreement [0]. You will note that, as is standard for online service contracts, they reserved the right to both modify the Service and Terms at any time (&quot;1.2 Modifications&quot;) and it&#x27;s expressly terminable at will (emphasis added):
Quote:
10. Termination.<p>10.1 By Customer. Customer may discontinue use of the Service at any time.<p>10.2 By Google. Customer agrees that Google may at any time and for any reason terminate this Agreement and&#x2F;or terminate the provision of all or any portion of the Service. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Google will provide at least thirty (30) days notice to Customer prior to terminating or suspending the Service; provided that the Service may be terminated immediately if (i) Customer has breached this Agreement or (ii) Google reasonably determines that it is commercially impractical to continue providing the Service in light of applicable laws.<p>10.3 Effects of Termination. If this Agreement terminates, then: (i) the rights granted by one party to the other will cease immediately (except as set forth in this Section); (ii) Google will provide Customer access to, and the ability to export, the Customer Data for a commercially reasonable period of time; and (iii) after a commercially reasonable period of time, Google will delete Customer Data by removing pointers to it on Google&#x27;s active servers and overwriting it over time.<p>They&#x27;ve provided way more than 30 days, they&#x27;re fine. Nobody sane promises forever but even if they do, contracts are governed by law and in general law (at least in the US) is very uncomfortable with perpetual contracts [1]. It&#x27;s not always impossible to legally spell out perpetual but it usually has to be very specific and has serious requirements. There is lots of case law around this. An indefinite end term doesn&#x27;t mean perpetual, on the contrary it is read as at-will since there is no end date. Google&#x27;s ToS will be governed under California law and the 9th Circuit, and AFAIK it has to be specific there too, Shannon v. Civil Service Employees Ins. Union, 169 Cal. App. 2d 79, 337 P.2d 136, 138 (1959). [2]:
Quote:
Contracts for life or in perpetuity will only be upheld when the intention is clearly expressed in unequivocal terms, and courts are prone to hold against the theory that a contract infers a perpetuity of right or imposes a perpetuity of obligation, and they will only construe a contract to impose such an obligation when the written document itself compels the construction and none other. Contracts for life--and that is what is contended for here--are so unusual as to have been, with rare exceptions, condemned by the courts as unreasonable and unauthorized.<p>&quot;Because of the unusual nature of life or perpetual agreements, the length and permanence of the obligation undertaken, the various unforeseeable events and conditions which may be encountered on such a journey in the future, and the unpredictable effects upon the parties, special precautions have been decreed essential, both as to consideration and the terms of employment, in construing and enforcing the compact. The responsibility assumed and the obligations imposed will be neither created nor spelled out by mere inference when they are not clearly and unequivocally expressed in the contract itself.&quot;<p>People on the internet have very weird ideas about law. Further, the remedy in civil law is about &quot;making each party whole&quot; and the courts in general loath specific performance. Normally remedy is about damages which can be covered with money. Maybe maybe maybe (not really) someone could squeeze out some switching cost, but no court is going to order Google to keep providing service that could be found elsewhere.<p>----<p>0: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20201031044304&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;workspace.google.com&#x2F;terms&#x2F;standard_terms.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20201031044304&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;workspace...</a><p>1: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;privateequity.weil.com&#x2F;glenn-west-musings&#x2F;forever-long-time-no-time&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;privateequity.weil.com&#x2F;glenn-west-musings&#x2F;forever-lo...</a><p>2: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;law.justia.com&#x2F;cases&#x2F;california&#x2F;court-of-appeal&#x2F;2d&#x2F;169&#x2F;79.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;law.justia.com&#x2F;cases&#x2F;california&#x2F;court-of-appeal&#x2F;2d&#x2F;1...</a>