i.e. Google's unlikely to hand over the dossier they've assembled on 'what your husband has been up to that we considered bad enough to shut down their account'
Most definitely not saying this isn't a false positive - but the handling process for it it must assume it's a positive.
Now why the poster's husband can't get the info - that is somewhat worrysome.
- it's weird to be mistreated by your employer's own product (just the irony bend to it)
- if you want to appeal after a dead end, your choice is to make a huge public PR nightmare, or try to make an internal post/plea that gains traction. you'd be doing your own employer a service if you could have this issue resolved without a PR nightmare
I was in a similar situation when I worked at Google. My brother kind of disappeared, and my family asked if we could at least check if he logged into Gmail. I asked and was told no, and I understood why -- it's up to my brother to share what he's up to, not Google. (My brother was fine; just didn't like replying to email or answering his phone.)
If you're not going to use that data when you get an opportunity like this to fix something, what's dogfooding and "trusted testers" all about?
It's sticking in your head in the sand out of a misguided attempt at being unbiased, instead of fixing things.
Companies serve the shareholders. Shareholders want to spend as little money as possible on user support. I think new regulations are a good way to solve this problem for everyone. US consumer protection laws need updating for the Internet age.
Google allows this for GSuite at $5/mo I think.
I guess they get the same treatment