Sue in small claims court. Costs about $50 to file, plus $100 or so for a process server.
Check Google's terms of service.[1] They're not too bad.
There's no forced arbitration. You can go to Small Claims Court in Santa Clara County, CA.
Google lists the reasons they can terminate an account. It's not a "sole discretion" thing; they have specific reasons listed. So Google will have to show in court that you violated those terms.
Definitely go. Google will have to send someone, or they lose.
In practice, you'll probably have your problem fixed shortly after your process server delivers the subpoena to 1600 Amphitheater Parkway.
That actually serves as a good example for the difference between Small Claims Court and Superior Court.
It might also have been a good idea to wait out until it was no longer possible to appeal the decision, before going public with the outcome.
IANAL, but I think there was still a good chance that the guy could have won an appeal if he had appropriate counsel represent his case, using appropriate discovery and other instruments to properly mount a defence.
AdSense issues are harder to win. Google has more discretion there. But their terms for ordinary accounts don't seem to allow arbitrary cancellation. That would attract unwanted attention from consumer protection agencies.
Small claims only provides monetary relief, you can't get equitable relief. How exactly are you going to calculate your monetary damages? And quite frankly, why would Google reinstate your account over losing a maximum of potentially $7,500?
Correct. In order to get injunctive relief of having account access restored, you'd have to sue Google in a Superior Court.
The difference between Small Claims and Superior is that in the former you're generally not allowed to bring an attorney, whereas in the latter you may actually be required to bring one.
Does anyone know whether account suspension without a reason is actually something that a pro-se litigant has any chance of suing these big companies for, and winning at all?
> in the former you're generally not allowed to bring an attorney
That only applies to individuals.
Corporations are not only allowed, but in fact required to be represented by an attorney in court. Even small claims. Corporations do not have pro se representation rights, and only an attorney can represent another person.
It is not true in all states that corporations must be represented by an attorney in small claims court. In California, corporations must be represented by a non-attorney employee for small claims actions.
The idea is that a Small Claims judge in Cali does not expect a lawyer, so, there is no need or expectation to any legal lingo, which by itself can be confusing to normal people, plus the rules of evidence are not nearly as strict as in Superior Court, plus, not that much money is at stake.
The thing that may be daunting about Superior Court is that the judge is supposed to take it easy on pro-se litigants, but at the same time, they are still supposed to be impartial, and can't really act as your own lawyer.
Being in the same small claims venue as the company is actually a nice side benefit to living in the Bay Area, otherwise you potentially be looking at thousands to hire a lawyer in normal court.
> Most large national businesses can be sued in any state, but smaller businesses that are headquartered in another state, do no business in your state, and have no physical presence in your state can be sued only in the states where they operate.
In California, you're not allowed to bring an attorney to a SCC -- only to Superior Court -- so, obviously, there's no attorney fees when attorneys are not allowed.
Some other states do allow attorneys in SCC, however.
They send a representative, probably someone from their legal department if they have one. The important thing is that both you and the company are arguing on much more level footing. You don't need to be thoroughly versed in court procedure, and the whole process is generally a little more lax than in superior court.
With that said, the company can still pump tons of money into things behind the scenes, but because the stakes are so low, and not necessarily precedent-forming, they're not likely to actually invest that much money into fighting you. And even if they do and you lose, since you brought the lawsuit and there are no attorney fees, the most you'd end up spending is the court fees (potentially the company's court fees, but those are minimal too.)
To level the playing field. The idea of Small Claims Court is to have a cheap way to resolve monetary disputes, without having to rely on complex procedures and expensive lawyers. So, since you as an individual wouldn't have a lawyer when you sue someone for $300, it wouldn't quite be fair if the company was afforded one.
Keep in mind that anything you take to a Small Claims Court you can also take to to a Superior Court, where only lawyers are allowed, unless you're an individual, and are representing yourself.
Not every state bans lawyers from SCC. But in California, you'd only face a lawyer in SCC if you sue them for not returning your money, or they sue you for not paying them their fees.
Check Google's terms of service.[1] They're not too bad. There's no forced arbitration. You can go to Small Claims Court in Santa Clara County, CA.
Google lists the reasons they can terminate an account. It's not a "sole discretion" thing; they have specific reasons listed. So Google will have to show in court that you violated those terms.
Definitely go. Google will have to send someone, or they lose.
In practice, you'll probably have your problem fixed shortly after your process server delivers the subpoena to 1600 Amphitheater Parkway.
California small claims court instructions: [2]
[1] https://policies.google.com/terms
[2] https://www.courts.ca.gov/1007.htm