Why do people keep confusing the law with their own personal ultra-libertarian ideology?
Companies have plenty of legal obligations towards their clients, especially outside the US where consumer protection is actually a thing. And "free" users are clients as well (no such thing as a free lunch, there's a reason why Google wants you to agree to a very long legal document before signing up, you're entering into a business arrangement where you pay with your data).
It's weird how people expect there to be no laws concerning corporations and their clients.
By which I'm not saying that the OP has any recourse in this particular case. But corporations do not have the absolute right to arbitrarily refuse or suspend services.
"My company, my rules" is an ideology, not the law.
I am generally pro-consumer protection, but filling in a sign-up form is in most cases not binding the company to much. Data protection laws is one thing, but obligation for eternal service isn't.
Generally an EULA specifies that a company has the right to suspend an account without cause (leading to termination of obligations on both sides, so you don't have to pay for a service anymore). I'm not sure how valid that has held up in courts, but the notion of ending a contract is not a new one.
But corporations do not have the absolute right to arbitrarily refuse or suspend services.
I agree they can't arbitrarily suspend services if there's some sort of agreement, but I thought that , by default, they can refuse. There are exceptions but they have to be codified (healthcare, for example).
I see your point, but I sure wouldn't want someone to expect me to not make decisions that best meet the needs of my business, and that would include discontinuing or changing my products or services.
However, I can see how when you are a company the size of Google that there should be some kind of responsibility to those that utilize your services, particularly since there is an exchange happening that benefits both parties.
Comments
Why do people keep confusing the law with their own personal ultra-libertarian ideology?
Companies have plenty of legal obligations towards their clients, especially outside the US where consumer protection is actually a thing. And "free" users are clients as well (no such thing as a free lunch, there's a reason why Google wants you to agree to a very long legal document before signing up, you're entering into a business arrangement where you pay with your data).
It's weird how people expect there to be no laws concerning corporations and their clients.
By which I'm not saying that the OP has any recourse in this particular case. But corporations do not have the absolute right to arbitrarily refuse or suspend services.
"My company, my rules" is an ideology, not the law.
I am generally pro-consumer protection, but filling in a sign-up form is in most cases not binding the company to much. Data protection laws is one thing, but obligation for eternal service isn't.
Generally an EULA specifies that a company has the right to suspend an account without cause (leading to termination of obligations on both sides, so you don't have to pay for a service anymore). I'm not sure how valid that has held up in courts, but the notion of ending a contract is not a new one.
I agree they can't arbitrarily suspend services if there's some sort of agreement, but I thought that , by default, they can refuse. There are exceptions but they have to be codified (healthcare, for example).
I see your point, but I sure wouldn't want someone to expect me to not make decisions that best meet the needs of my business, and that would include discontinuing or changing my products or services. However, I can see how when you are a company the size of Google that there should be some kind of responsibility to those that utilize your services, particularly since there is an exchange happening that benefits both parties.