Google offered "as much storage as you need" for the Workspace account, without attaching a condition on a required number of seats. It's not a loophole if a customer takes them up on the offer.
I'm usually sympathetic with businesses who failed to appreciate how much power very few power users really have, but this is Google we're talking about. Their sales and legal department is larger than 90% of tech companies. This was their mistake and their mistake only.
The difference here is that Google was the one who fired him as a customer, and did so on a timeframe tight enough to make it functionally impossible to actually get all his data back.
As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, the "firing of the customer" (i.e. the cancellation of the subscription by Google) occurred >6 months before any actual deletion of the data. The alert that data would be deleted occurred 7 days before. It's difficult to argue that he couldn't have seen this coming.
>It's difficult to argue that he couldn't have seen this coming.
around the same time the FBI raided him. I imagine he was quite busy as is.
And there's a difference between "he should have seen this coming" and "he should have seen his data being deleted coming a week after the grace period with no wrning until the week before."
In your analogy, the person was ordering the "fries with as much ketchup as you need", which McDonalds was specifically advertising for people who need a lot of ketchup. Also we would live in a world where eating a few hundred ketchup packets wouldn't be very unusual.
Go to the Internet Archive and look at the Workspace pricing page of two years ago. They put it front and center that you would get "as much storage as you need". They also made you go through sales, so if they only intended to sell the product to people buying hundreds of seats, that would have been totally possible. They didn't.
Life would be miserable if every restaurant had to parcel out individual sugar packets just because 1/100 people decided to abuse it and take them all home.
Why do you want everything to be financialized? The world works better when people can use small conveniences non-abusively.
>Life would be miserable if every restaurant had to parcel out individual sugar packets just because 1/100 people decided to abuse it and take them all home.
OK
>Why do you want everything to be financialized?
Where did I say this?
>The world works better when people can use small conveniences non-abusively.
OK
Did you just not want to address anything in the comment you replied to?
Not if they were explicitly offering unlimited fries.
In that case they would be indisputably unreasonable, in its dictionary definition of “having no basis in reason or fact”, where reason and fact are that they offered unlimited — not 5 pounds — but unlimited fries with any hamburger.
I'm usually sympathetic with businesses who failed to appreciate how much power very few power users really have, but this is Google we're talking about. Their sales and legal department is larger than 90% of tech companies. This was their mistake and their mistake only.