Hacker News Reader

Comment by Stratoscope | Hacker News Reader

Let's say you ask your Lenovo Smart Display, "What is a Rat Terrier?"

You get a nice summary screen with a photo of a Rat Terrier, and the assistant says, "According to Wikipedia, the Rat Terrier is an American dog breed [and goes on from there]"

There is also a handy Wikipedia link in the middle of the page if you want to read more.

Last week this link - and all other viewing of web pages - was disabled by a Google update. This is not a "bug" from Google's point of view, it was a deliberate and documented change.

> Important: Access to the web isn’t supported on Smart Displays made by manufacturers other than Google.

https://g.co/assistant/web-filter

Of course it was supported before this forced update!

I am thinking of filing against Google in small claims court to be refunded the price I paid for my three Lenovo Smart Displays.

Also discussed on the Lenovo forum:

https://forums.lenovo.com/t5/Lenovo-Link-App-Smart-Home-Esse...

View on HN

99% of people wouldn't dare taking Google to court, because they use Google services and if Google decides to close their accounts and stop doing business with them going forward, they stand to lose much more than the price of the device.

Then you take them court yet again this time for discrimination.

Also this is not a thing that can happen I think. Like for example epic vs Apple. Apple didn’t have the ability to close down all accounts of epic.

Apple tried though, and the only reason they didn't succeed is Epic has high priced lawyers like Apple does. These companies can just bankrupt you with legal fees.

For an individual, tech companies can absolutely beat you over the head illegally and count on their better lawyers to make it stick. Unless you're Tim Sweeney level loaded I would recommend against trying it.

I think you mean "retaliation"? Regardless, unclear if you'd win that, and during the many months while you're litigating this, you still have no access to your Google account, unless you can get the judge to order Google to at least temporarily give you access while the court case is being worked out.

All of this is far from certain, and I would certainly understand someone not wanting to assume the risk. I definitely wouldn't. And that's yet another thing that sucks about this: Google isn't accountable here because they hold so much power over our digital lives.

Oh, good point! I wasn't really serious; it just seemed like cheap entertainment. But now consider me terrified.

This is a very big risk here. Parent should definitely not still have everything pointed at Gmail before they file anything.

yes, obviously should move everything off services before proceeding, proceed, and be ready to write an article on Medium about Google disabling your services when you take them to small claims court after they ripped you off by turning your smart display into a dumb one.

Isn’t this reason enough to stop using Google?

But it's free*!

FYI this is open and shut antitrust.

If they tried to do this you'd have a wonderful legal case against them if you so choose.

I love the energy, but I'm not sure you're right. Do you have specific case law you'd cite?

Without limiting the answer to the United States:

Antitrust law is very complicated because there's multiple different legal concepts in play. The punitive action response above is probably much better informed than my off the cuff one, and probably applies to this case moreso.

However, one principal test example I had in mind is if they close someone's Google Ads account.

For most businesses, removing the ability to advertise on Google would seriously impact their viability to compete with their competitors.

That's a classic example of Google being in a "market dominant position" vis a vis antitrust law.

Now the likely hood of this happening is close to zero. Because Google does NOT want to establish ANY sort of legal precedent ANYWHERE related to Google being in a market dominant position.

That would impact its business hugely.

I just think you’re applying the word anti-trust incorrectly.

There are plenty of other non-Google ad networks, they just aren’t as good. Facebook obviously stands out as an example. Amazon another. Same for email clients.

A regulator may see Google’s share in any of those markets and use that as evidence of monopoly power, but google bans plenty of people from using their services every day. I don’t think that’s the mechanism through which anyone can regulate them on anti-trust grounds.

Don't their EULAs say something like "you lose the license to the product if you sue us"? I remember that such a clause used to exist in the React's licence, and I vaguely remember seeing it on some EULA I accepted recently. (I don't have the money to sue a megacorp anyway.)

That sounds like something unenforceable if there ever was an unenforceable clause.

Perhaps, but would you really like your Google account closed an inaccessible for a year or more while the courts work it out. Can you even afford lawyers over that time period? Not sure you'd be able to find one who would take this on contingency.

And that's the shitty bit about our legal system: it's slow enough that the entity you're suing can keep hurting you for a long time until things get resolved, and it's incredibly expensive to get them resolved, especially if you're going against a company with deep pockets.

I do wonder, though, if, when you go to small claims court (where the advantage is tilted a bit toward the plaintiff), and in addition to asking for the value of the devices, you could also get the judge to issue an injunction against Google, prohibiting them from taking any retaliatory action, like closing your accounts. That might be out of scope for small claims court, though.

I'm still not sure you'd win any of this, though.

Pretty sure that's why injunctions exist, if there is grievous harm while things are litigated. Keeping your account alive vs. not sounds totally one-sided in terms of harm to each party.

How would this lead to an antitrust claim?

99% of people depend on Google services? There is no Google service for which I can’t find a better alternative where they would cut me off.

Spam filtering?

I get very little spam in my Fastmail inbox.

I just moved my email from GMail to Fastmail a week ago, and I still get no spam. Spam folder is still full of it, though.

Google is baked into Android. All your saved passwords go if your account goes. Some of which may be unrecoverable if your email also goes.

Google assistant devices can't work with Alexa so that means buying a new device. All your "sign in with google" OAuth sites go.

It would be a major hassle to move away from Google, and I'm not even sure I'd even trust any other company to do all that anyway.

Google's business model is spying on you, so you can sortof trust they won't pull the major popular services as long as you play by the rules exactly. For an average person thay would seem to be the safest option. At least until recently, they've pulled more and more stuff lately.

If Google bans my personal account I lose access to Google Play, Translate, some useless files on Google Drive and abandoned projects on Google Cloud and maybe nothing else. I won't be able to backup WhatsApp and move it to another phone, this is annoying. No Google Play means no updates for the banking apps so I'll be unable to log into my banks soon (they do 2FA with their app.) This is huge.

Of course most Android users are more invested in the ecosystem than I am. I'm not sure I can create another account with the same phone number. I'm not going to buy an iPhone or an iPad so I'm not sure what I'll be going to do. Change number?

BTW not Linux phones, too many apps I need are not working there (especially banks.)

Don’t use Android? 60% of mobile users in the US in fact don’t.

The only other major smartphone is iOS,

Not all that interested in spending $400 minimum on a phone(Or take my chances with something used), for something I can't develop for without paying even more money, that only allows WebKit based browsers, and doesn't use USB-C.

$99 a year to release an app is going to break the bank?

For someone who is not a professional app developer it can.

That's insanely expensive for a FOSS side project, if you're in embedded and controls and don't do any pro apps.

But that “not a professional app developer” has to be able to afford a decent computer to run one of the god awful Java IDEs, the resource intensive Android emulators, a phone, internet access etc.

If it’s an open source project that’s not going to be on the App Store, you can get XCode for free to run an app on your own device and give others the source code.

You also have to buy a Mac. The Windows or Linux computer you already have won't run XCode. That's way more than 99 dollars.

Nobody except other maybe devs will even consider that much trouble. Especially when compiling something yourself is not really more secure than downloading a binary(Unless you literally read the entire source code first).

Almost any modern app will run fine on an i5, 16GB or so GB of RAM, and an SSD. Nowhere near macbook costs.

You need something of about that tier for any pro development with any kind of modern tools, and there are iPhones out there that cost more than a decent laptop.

Plus, software resource demands seem to have leveled off. A Linux laptop is quite possibly going to be perfectly good for like 12 years.

Yes and there are also iPhones that cost $399…

Again, if you can afford a developer setup, $99/year is not a showstopper.

$399 is still about 2x the cost of my phone, and a little under 1/2 the price of a laptop.

Not every developer works for FAANG . Some jobs rely heavily on in person work. And not everyone can drive. If you're making effectively minimum wage, $99 is a big deal.

Especially when Apple doesn't really seem to offer that much of anything aside from privacy(and mdns support) Android is great now, and iOS is way too locked down.

Yes because it takes a “FAANG developer” to afford an iPhone. Does 60% of the US population work for a FAANG?

How many developers are making “minimum wage”?

I'm not sure why that 60% uses Apple, but as far as I can tell it's mostly 5 overlapping types.

The rich, people in a Mac dominated career, those who want to look rich, those who care much more about privacy than an average person, and people who sometimes think the world would be better if computers didn't exist.

Could it possibly be that people see it as a better product?

60% of the US population isn’t “rich”. Even when I was selling cell phones back in 1996 at Radio Shack, the unsubsidized price of a cell phone was $300.

How much of a “status” is it to have something that 60% of the population has?

Only 40% of phone users in the US use Android.

Google Assistant is far behind Amazon for home devices.

There is another little company that you might have heard of that sells phones that doesn’t depend on collecting data.

I also avoid using sign in with Google and use a service where I can “Hide my Email”.

Everything that Google does is a sub par user experience festered with ads

That other company costs about 2x as much though, and they heavily limit what you can do with them. They also charge more money for accessories, they don't support SD cards, some say third party stuff like Tile is just a little bit crappier than it is on Android, etc.

If you're rich, and really care about your privacy, it makes sense, but most people I know use Android.

Not sure where all these iOS users are, it must be regional or class-based or something

I would rather have the simple transaction that I give the company money and they give me stuff than buy a phone where the company makes money based on collecting personal data on everything I do on the phone.

Google's data collection lets me afford better tech than I otherwise would, so I really don't mind that much.

It's not like these are random hackers that can steal credit cards, that's not what they do.

There should be a lot more private tech available for those that need it, but for everyone else Apple is just too expensive for a protest unless privacy is on your shortlist of causes you really care about and prioritize.

I believe if google takes anything that could be seen as punitive action against you because you filed a lawsuit they open themselves up to much larger damages.

When I was the class representative in a class action law suit, during the deposition the very first thing the lawyer defending the company we were suing opened with "I want to assure you that you will continue to receive the very best service, and we will take no actions against you for exercising your rights. If you feel this is not being honored reach out to me directly. We take this very seriously." and handed me their card. Then we got down to the deposition.

For me personally them taking that action against me would have been a win win as it would have majorly increased my payout. This was a car dealer so I would just go to another mechanic. Or buy out of state. For google? I'd need to move some files and update a few companies on my address, I have alternate factors on the things I care about anyway.

> I believe if google takes anything that could be seen as punitive action against you because you filed a lawsuit they open themselves up to much larger damages.

Does it, though? Their ToS almost certainly allows them to close your account for no reason.

I made a support request to my bank recently and they decided to use the ToS to simply close my account instead of deal with the request which would have required a change to their immutable support script.

Their purpose is almost entirely to scare legally uninformed end users.

Yeah but you can terminate an unpaid service for no reason, that’s well established. It’s not even governed by contract law because there’s no consideration.

The real reason small claims is a bad idea is that this should be handled through a class action.

What!

So you get 1 buck and teams of lawyers get 70 million?

Better to use small claims, at least you'll get thousands. And most small claims courts? No lawyers.

If everyone took google to small claims, it'd be the death of 1000 cuts for them.

> Does it, though? Their ToS almost certainly allows them to close your account for no reason

Whistleblowers can't be fired from at-will employment for the similar reasons, i.e. massive legal exposure. Sure, an employee can be fired for no reason, but companies choose to settle (i.e. pay out a lot of money) instead of firing people outright if the situation can give the barest whiff of retaliation.

I don't know what the law says about this, but "for no reason" is always different than "for any reason". Because you sued them is a specific reason, that they might be prohibited from retaliating based on (or might not, again I don't know).

The classic example of this is race. You can not hire someone, or deny someone service, for no reason. You can't however not hire them, or deny them service, for the reason that they are black.

That sounds nice, but can't possibly matter. "We're closing your account, for, uhm, no reason." How are you going to argue against that?

Exactly.

This is what I received:

"Additionally, we are electing to terminate your Cash App account (as allowed in our Terms of Service, section XIII.8). As a result of the termination of your Cash App account, you will no longer be able to use Cash App and its services going forward."

XIII.8. Termination of Account

We can terminate or deny you access to our services at any time, for any reason. You can also choose to deactivate your account at any time.

We may terminate these Cash App Terms or any Terms, or suspend or terminate your Account or your access to any Service, at any time for any reason, including a violation of the Terms. We may add or remove, suspend, stop, delete, discontinue or impose conditions on Services or any feature or aspect of a Service. We will take reasonable steps to notify you of termination or these other types of Service changes by email or at the next time you attempt to access your Account. You may also terminate the Cash App Terms applicable to your Account by deactivating your Account at any time.

"I <did x>, and then they took the rare action of closing my account (which they're not allowed to do in response to <x>) for no apparent reason" is more than enough to

1. Get discovery to gather further evidence

2. In the absence of a convincing rebuttal from Google ("he was sharing copyrighted movies via Google Drive, and per our policies we closed his account like we closed 1000 other peoples accounts. Our policy is exhibit A, the list of copyrighted movies he shared is exhibit B, the list of other similar accounts is exhibit C"), is probably enough to win a civil court case by itself.

The standard for civil cases is generally "on the balance of probabilities", not beyond a reasonable doubt like in criminal cases. Courts are allowed to rule on what seems like the likely reason that someone did something.

Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, bladdy blah blah, if you take this as legal advice your both a fool for not consulting a lawyer, and taking advice from someone on a topic where they themselves admitted that they don't know if Google is even prohibited from doing business with you in this hypothetical.

Race is a protected class, and hiring based on race is specifically protected.

No need to take Google to court. Just return the defunct product for a refund. Buy a product that you plug into a TV that lets you use the web.

If 90% of people get a refund, then Lenovo will sue Google.

I presume his devices are way outside refund period

Some credit cards have policies for consumer disputes and merchant misconduct which google’s action could fall under. I wasn’t able to find a good explanation on mobile as I’d imagine they are purposefully deep in a terms of agreement document, but this link has some info: https://www.fidelitypayment.com/resources/chargeback-prevent...

> I am thinking of filing against Google in small claims court to be refunded the price I paid for my three Lenovo Smart Displays.

IMNAL, but won't you have a better chance of success going against Lenovo than Google, since it's a Lenovo device.

Just for record, when Sony killed support for their smart clock, forgot what it's called, they gave everyone something - we got a Sony bluetooth speaker.

Edit: In Android generally you can uninstall updates for individual services - did you try that?

Interesting idea about suing Lenovo instead. But I like Lenovo! The Smart Display is a very sweet piece of machinery. It's Google who damaged this machine with their forced update.

Dunno about rolling back any Android services, this is basically a kitchen appliance that Google controls my interaction with. As much as I love to hack into systems, I don't see a way in there that would be worth my time.

Regardless of your preference and who manages the updates to your device, your contractual relationship was with the retailer and Lenovo (the manufacturer), not with Google.

If you're serious about pursuing Google then investigate the grounds for claiming "Tortious Interference".

Talk to a lawyer, but, strategically, this is usually when you sue both parties. That forces them to deal with each other, and eventually their blaming each other ends up being argued in front of a judge.

Wayback machine has the old version: https://web.archive.org/web/20211006161159/https://support.g...

They don't even have the courtesy to list the last update date\time for the support page.

If your personal vandetta is strong enough, you could represent yourself and only pay a few hundred in filing and court fees. It's fairly common to do that in small claims court so the judges are used to shmucks. And I would be shocked if Google/Lenovo spent money on lawyers for a case this cheap, they'd probably lead with a settlement offer for $2k or whatever.

Some states don't even allow lawyers in small claims court.

How does that work if the defendent is a corporation? Google could only hire a paralegal to represent them?

Typically product managers

For anything small claims Google would most likely settle as a matter of policy. The instant you file, you've already cost the company way more than the max judgement you can get in small claims.

Small claims court is very easy & straightforward in the UK. The low complexity of the cases and the relatively low stakes means representing yourself is a valid strategy.

Having spent years in court, I would guarantee once you serve Google they will just get a local-ish law firm to turn up and represent them at any cost. And the lawyer will probably know the judge. And judges universally HATE unrepresented (I hate the terms self-represented and pro se) schmucks.

Why would you sue Google and not Lenovo? Google didn't promise you anything to begin with, the device manufacturer did.

when you sue for damages, you sue the party who damaged you. if I throw a rock through your lenovo, you don't sue lenovo.

Google didn't "damage" anyone by choosing to upgrade their OS. Lenovo was the one who made a promise at the time of the device sale, and now they are no longer abiding by it. Of course software features are taken away all the time, so that probably won't fly either.

Yep also you signed a hefty EULA with Lenovo allowing just this. Lenovo uses the google home software modified for its product. This is the same problem android phones have. Google moves on and OEMs don't bother to keep up. Or OEM's contract end and they don't want to pay to renew. These hit the market in 2018 so they were most likely licensed in 2017, so that 5 year just expired and now they can't use whatever google service anymore.

That doesn't make it morally right, but legally, this isn't a case that's going to work out. If cases like this did work, the tech industry would collapse because every ambulance chaser would sue over any tiny software change.

Be sure to do Google Checkout before you file your claim, in case they decide to deactivate your account

I think you mean Google Takeout? But point well taken. In any case I wasn't serious about that.

Of course not. All hail our robot overlords!

> I am thinking of filing against Google in small claims court to be refunded the price I paid for my three Lenovo Smart Displays.

I hate to break it you you but those displays are not yours, unfortunately.

that's for the court to decide. Probably google won't show up so I would think it likely with a receipt for payment the court would decide the devices were indeed his/or hers.

I was just making a cheeky comment related to software freedom.

Look like their own support agents are unaware of the change.

I really hope you do.

yea, sure if your time is worth the price of 3 smart displays.

I was being facetious when I mentioned small claims court. Of course my time is worth more than that! It was just a way of expressing my annoyance about the update.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com