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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Their purpose is almost entirely to scare legally uninformed end users.
The real reason small claims is a bad idea is that this should be handled through a class action.
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.