I wonder if this is a situation where the right course of action is to sue Google and/or push for stronger regulation around suspension of customer accounts?
So Mary from legal walks over to Manager whoever and says "Hey why the fuck did you terminate this guys account? Now I have to go to court."
Account reinstated. You drop the case.
This produces stupidly improved results.
If enough people started making companies show up to small claims court for their shitty behaviour maybe they wouldn't act so shitty.
covers some situations where someone stops you for making money, for no good reason.
"As an example, someone could ... obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods."
In this case:
1: SSLMate is a paying customer. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
2: Google harmed SSLMate, and their customers, by deliberately interrupting the services that were paid for.
The big question is if SSLMate was following the terms of service. If SSLMate was actually violating the terms, then it's a hard case to make. Otherwise, Google violated the contract and harmed SSLMate, and is therefore a valid target in US court.
I guess a lawyer can argue against this, but I'd say that losing access to a lifetime if mails is absolutely up there with "legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her."
And from my own experience building software for government services, I can tell you this: In my experience in those systems it is not acceptable to just have a list where someone clicks “deny” all day. Or allow for that matter. We tried with a system were the rule is that the citizen gets <think they apply for> whenever all relevant demands are met. Legal was very clear: No automated decisions either way unless the relevant laws or regulations explicitly allow it, every case has to be reviewed independently — even when the outcome seems completely obvious to anyone who knows the field.