you didn't really answer my question, and it also seems like the claim that there was no harm done is a bit specious, enough users to form a class certainly seem to feel harmed.
There is also something to be said about the general societal ill of feeling entitled to compensation for the slightest of perceived harms.
(2) This is not an imaginary slight, a corporation wrote a piece of code with a clear intent to bypass a security setting on a user's device. Would the roles be reversed, charges would be brought against human without the need to prove harm or harmful intent -- DCMA is broad enough for that. Why should GOOG be less burdened by its unethical behaviour?
this seems almost non-sequitur. either way, it is the court's purpose to ascertain harm and any consequent penalties (if any).