Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

No, it's not fraud. A key element of fraud (civil and criminal) is that the accused knowingly misled, and to prove that you'd need to prove that there is no reasonable interpretation of what they said that they could have believed was true.



With Google they offer enough data points to analyze for just such intent. In the absence of intent fraud is out of the question, but a jury might be convinced that a persistent pattern of incompetence which is brought to Google’s attention again and again without change meets the bar of fraud, especially in a civil court with the mere preponderance of the evidence standard. The post-banning behavior of automated responses and refusal to escalate customer service calls won’t help them either. As in the case of MS back in the day, it can seem like the law is just disinterested, but the law is merely unbelievably slow and equally inevitable. The day some prosecutors can make a career out of taking on Google, they will, and by then Google will be fully on the wrong side of public opinion.


Prosecutors don't make civil cases. I mean, all this is silly, but start there.


That second half of my post was not in relation to a civil case, which I think was painfully obvious given the reference to MS. Did you really misunderstand?

As in the case of MS back in the day, it can seem like the law is just disinterested, but the law is merely unbelievably slow and equally inevitable. The day some prosecutors can make a career out of taking on Google, they will, and by then Google will be fully on the wrong side of public opinion.

That is pretty damned unambiguous, unless you found as in the case of MS... confusing. If you want to explain what you found “silly” I’m open to reading your perspective of course.




Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: