Google suspended my company's Google cloud account for the third time
171 comments
·November 3, 2025antman
embedding-shape
> People consider google as a trusted partner
Haha, what "people"? Even people who aren't computer techies seems to be aware having a Google account is "a privilege lost at any time for any reason", almost everyone seems to know at least one acquaintance that somehow lost access to their personal account at one point and if you bring up any Google products in discussions, it isn't uncommon to hear "Yeah, I'd give that a try if I want to use a product that only works for a year".
Not sure there are many people left treating Google as a "trusted partner" unless you have a multi-million deal/contact with them.
goalieca
I know more people than not who have gmail as their primary email.. the one that _every_ other account and bank and government service sends out to. It's not exactly well known that there are challenges for account recovery etc.
SoftTalker
I have a gmail account that is connected to my Android phone. I don't use it for anything else, so it's unlikely that I would run afoul of Google for anything I do with it.
Any hosted email, paid or free, is going to have terms and conditions and you will be able to find anecdotes from people whose service was suspended "for no reason" but it's that or buy your own domain and host your own email.
szundi
[dead]
hilbert42
"Not sure there are many people left treating Google as a "trusted partner" …"
Trouble is that whilst many have realized that Google (like much of Big Tech) is the quintessential example of a Poisoned Chalice they remain all too aware they've little choice but to endure or risk unavoidable abuse.
The tragedy of the modern internet is that these monopolies have reduced competition and choice to irrelevancies.
netsharc
Cloud feudalism. The feudal decides what rules to apply, their reasoning is opaque and the protests of their subjects don't reach them. One day the feudal can confiscate all your possessions within his territory and banish you from his reign, for whatever reason. You can ask the feudal's henchmen for redress but they can ignore you or just tell you bullshit.
Sometimes protests that reach enough crowd get heard and the problem gets fixed...
Spunkie
> Haha, what "people"?
You should see the sideways looks I get from people when they find out I backup all our gmail to another service and don't allow employees to use Google SSO logins for sites. Just encase googles 'fraud' bots randomly shut down our workspace. I don't want the entire business to ground to a halt because we can't login to any sites.
kovezd
That was not a person, it was an LLM.
embedding-shape
Not doubting you, but what possible purpose could anyone have to use LLMs to output HN comments? Hardly exists a lower-stakes environment than here :) But yeah, I guess it wouldn't be the first time I reply to LLM-generated comments...
danaris
I...think you may be in a bubble if you believe this.
I've never talked to anyone outside of tech circles like this that has any inkling that Google just shutters people's digital lives with no warning or recourse.
In general, with any kind of mainstream large company, you should assume that the overall public perception of them is that they're fine, of course, if they weren't why would they be so big and popular??
SoftTalker
> I've never talked to anyone outside of tech circles like this that has any inkling that Google just shutters people's digital lives with no warning or recourse.
Because they generally don't do this. The people who get suspended are not just normies using gmail. They are (as in this case) running complicated services doing a lot of access to Google APIs and though likely with no bad intent are activating tripwires that Google has set up to detect abuse.
raincole
Even for people in tech using Gmail as the primary email is still quite common. Outside of tech Google is perceived as utility like tap water.
embedding-shape
> I've never talked to anyone outside of tech circles like this that has any inkling that Google just shutters people's digital lives with no warning or recourse.
I thought I was specific enough but seems maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm specifically talking about "outside of tech circles" (hence the "Even people who aren't computer techies"). I'm talking about acquaintances that works in retail stores, gas stations and similar, even these people seem averse to Google today when I've chatted with them about it for unrelated reasons.
Maybe it's because this is in Europe and people generally have more measured views of US companies, especially as of late? Not sure how it looks/seems in other parts in the world, but since I'm bound to one location, I definitely live in some sort of local bubble here like everyone else on this earth, not gonna lie :)
maxglute
A few years ago google blocked my youtube red / premium account for spam even though the account was only used to watch videos. Not only did they wipe the account the wiped access to the payment page so I couldn't even cancel membership for months, dealing with robotic messages (you get to appeal every 3 weeks) all while being charged. Oh I also had Google One which promised in person support but they couldnt do shit because YT different team. I ended up cancelling the credit card. Earlier this year, I got a random message that my suspension was reversed and the original suspension was in error.
Just anedotally, I've had my wechat account blocked before and it took less than a day to talk to a person to get it sorted. At least PRC censorship has good customer service.
charles_f
All these platforms go for scale. They can't have individualized relations with people and have the rentability of a drug lord, especially when said people aren’t part of some world-scale enterprise who provides a sizeable chunk of their revenue. If they catch one good person for every bad one they eliminate, it’s seen as an unfortunate side-effect, a necessary cost, and they’re fine with it.
Yesterday was a wise account(1), the week before was GitHub (2)
Companies are fiefdoms, they’re not democracies with a judicial system. If one of the automated sheriffs identifies you as a criminal, it doesn’t put you on trial, but directly sentences you to jail. Your process from there is never clear and it's anyone's guess to what the outcome will be.
1: https://shaun.nz/why-were-never-using-wise-again-a-cautionar...
trubadors
This is so true. That's why I always say it's better to choose smaller companies with whom you can still get in touch with a human being, not just a chat bot. I went with Tuta Mail and haven't looked back: quantum-safe encryption, no tracking, no ads. Plus, with my domain I can have as many aliases as I like.
Romario77
with smaller companies there is another problem - they get acquired and then you get the same deal.
TIPSIO
This will probably become a major problem with the Gemini APIs in enough time.
A customer does something crappy, e.g.: generates an image they aren't supposed to, and boom you're business Gmail and/or the recovery personal Gmail gone forever.
strangescript
there are built in moderation tools you should turn on if you have external customers generating images, or inputing data that might be sketch
samtheprogram
The example in this blog post, they did something recommended by Google and still got banned. Based on that, I'm not sure their built in moderation tools are enough insurance.
bhouston
It can be super hard to moderate before an image is generated though. People can write in cryptic language and then say decode this message and generate an image the result, etc. The downside of LLMs is that they are super hard to moderate because they will gladly arbitrarily encode input and output. You need to use an LLM as advanced as the one you are running in production to actually check if they are obscene.
ceejayoz
And these tools are perfect?
fukka42
[dead]
markstos
The problem here is not just Google, but huge companies in general that operate at a scale where algorithms are the only viable way to sufficiently keep abuse under control.
Reddit recently shadowbanned me as my account was approaching 20 years old. There was no message about what violation had been committed, and attempts to appeal went unanswered. All posts started getting filtered at some point and all comments throttled.
The Fediverse provides a template for a better way-- smaller connected services with better moderator to user ratios.
hamdingers
If your concern is being mysteriously cut off from communities by capricious and inscrutable moderators then all the Fediverse offers is an opportunity to experience that over and over indefinitely. I've never encountered a community less interested in accountable moderation.
Is it still true that pretty much anyone can post your handle with #fediblock and get you and your entire instance sent to the cornfield automatically by hundreds of servers? This destroyed my city's mastodon instance and drove everyone I knew there to bluesky.
dredmorbius
The Fediverse has multiple hosts. And the option to host your own should you choose to do so.
I've been on the Fediverse for nearly a decade. I've jumped instances a few times. I'm currently with an instance run by a friend I've known online for well over a decade, who does have a strict moderation approach, but is also reachable out-of-band and is quite responsive and principled.
On Reddit, Google, FB, etc., you've got a single provider, and if they freeze you out you are fully frozen out.
edoceo
Algorithm isn't the only viable way. G has a massive amount of cash. Enough to employ 100 people to manage these edge cases. But that cuts margin.
Balinares
100 people vastly underestimates both the complexity of the GCP landscape and the relentlessness of the daily fraud onslaught, and you don't know what the false positive rate of humans is vs that of the algorithms.
It would take thousands, at least, with top training and the breathing space to actually engage with customers individually. Mind you Google should still do it in my opinion.
reaperducer
The problem here is not just Google, but huge companies in general that operate at a scale where algorithms are the only viable way to sufficiently keep abuse under control.
The companies you speak of are billion- and trillion-dollar companies. Banning people is not the only viable way of doing things.
They have the money. They choose not to spend it.
dredmorbius
Corollary: it's more profitable to act this way than otherwise.
e145bc455f1
Android developer verification would end up just like this. Lots of people would be banned from developing for Android.
traverseda
How do you justify specializing in mobile development when it's very clear that you're just sharecroppers on someone else's land?
jonbiggums22
Like Uber drivers' using their girlfriends' ID verification because they have a criminal record, you can also just cut in some random guy to borrow his ID for another chance. There should be plenty of dudes available willing to sell an ID verification for cheap in poorer countries but there's also plenty in wealthy countries because very few anywhere were ever going to have a Google developer account in the first place.
toomuchtodo
Eventually you run out of IDs, and as a Sybil attack you're gonna get slowed down.
(remote identity proofing and fraud mitigation is a component of my work in finance)
https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3-Implementation-Resources/63A...
https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3-Implementation-Resources/63A...
didip
Heh, I have been wondering about this for a very long time. The walled garden toll booth is too strict.
For example, the old Uber with the crazy thing they did. What if in the alternate universe they straight up got banned? That’s it. All investments would go to zero.
brazukadev
> What if in the alternate universe they straight up got banned?
The zeitgeist of the time wouldn't have allowed that. Everybody talking about banning Uber or Airbnb was framed as an enemy of progress.
immibis
Isn't it simple? You do it because it makes money.
Lots of businesses can fail at any time. People still run them and work for them as long as it makes money, and WHEN it stops working, they stop that and do something else to make money. All business is ephemeral.
gear54rus
It doesn't matter. As long as you can spam people with crap like popups and notifications easier than on the web, we will still see all those unnecessary 'apps' that could just be a web page.
clumsysmurf
Some of us started long long ago, Android 1.0 time, when Google seemed like a different company. Their first blogs didn't mention splitting your personal google account from your developer account. I never heard of anyone getting banned. Oh boy, things have changed!
f4uCL9dNSnQm
Isn't it already quite bad? I remember HN post about small company where employees' private accounts got terminated for "due to a prior violation or an association with a previously-terminated Google Play Developer account".
moduspol
We had ours unexpectedly blocked and we were just using it for a "Login with Google" button. The only explanation was the vague "You did something against our terms and conditions." We hadn't done anything. Our use case is nothing beyond the "Login with Google" button.
We opened a case to appeal asking for more details or a review. Meanwhile, we're scrambling to implement some kind of workaround for our users that log in with their Google account.
And then early the next day, we get the email that our appeal was granted. Just need to be sure we follow the terms and conditions in the future.
I guess it could have been worse but still a bit of a slap in the face.
NetMageSCW
I would just stop supporting “login with Google”.
toomuchtodo
Consider dropping social logins for only user/pass/MFA and Passkeys.
ph4rsikal
My AdSense account was suspended three times because I had an exclamation mark in my ad. I closed my account after that. I am certain Google still tracks my account as "potential fraud" to this day.
Sevii
It's insane. They have the tooling to automatically lock my account because an ad doesn't follow the rules, but can't tell me while I'm making the ad? Why even let people submit invalid ads? What is the point of making it easy to sign up for adwords if new users are automatically banned in an hour?
edoceo
Or terminate your account while you see ads for similar products (your competitors) still showing.
anonzzzies
Mine was permanently suspended with no recourse for that reason. Many years ago though.
ecshafer
What is their reasoning? Exclamation marks are in almost every print ad since the invention of the exclamation mark.
0cf8612b2e1e
I might be misremembering, but I recall reading that Facebook Marketplace used to disallow posts with a “$”. Which is hilarious from the outside.
thousand_nights
are exclamation marks not allowed or is that just some absurd mistake by them?
sixothree
They surely aren't going to tell you what you did wrong. That's the real problem here.
petre
"Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind." – Terry Pratchett, Eric
gwbas1c
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?
perihelions
"Company declines to do business with me" isn't usually a cause of action you can sue over.
hliyan
If you reframe this as: a commercial entity progressively dominates a service that is increasingly becoming necessary for survival in the modern world (e.g. primary email / identity provider) or in a given profession (Android developer), and then denies that service to some individuals, while also keeping the cost of switching away to competitors high, then there is a case for natural justice, even if there (still) aren't laws in the books to cover it.
WorldMaker
A lot of what you are describing is a "monopoly". Last I checked anti-trust laws are still on the books in many places, just good luck finding politicians willing to go to bat on them and enforce them.
gwbas1c
The US legal system is all based on proving harm.
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.
RobotToaster
You can sue over anything, doesn't mean you'll win.
If enough people started making companies show up to small claims court for their shitty behaviour maybe they wouldn't act so shitty.
vorpalhex
But sue-ing means your problem goes to legal and not tier 1 customer support.
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.
null
fukka42
[dead]
null
immibis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
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."
skinkestek
For EU citizens, GDPR requires that if you ask for it, a human has to review your case. (Article 22 "The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.")
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.
tjpnz
Annecdotally you do stand a decent chance of winning if you take them to small claims, either because Google doesn't send someone or they try to argue their misbehavior is warranted per the TOS (apparently that doesn't go down well).
amanaplanacanal
Winning... What? Small claims is about recovering money due to you, not getting access to your Google account.
immibis
Courts can order specific performance when that wouldn't bring undue hardship to the one performing. Not sure if small claims can, but it's plausible.
jeffbee
[flagged]
shevy-java
That seems a simplification. Suing Google could backfire. Who has more money to win in court?
mekoka
Backfire how? Small claims is a different game.
immibis
In your jurisdiction do you have to pay Google's legal fees if you lose?
8cvor6j844qw_d6
So, what happens to an account that is registered with said suspended email account and with a passkey-only login?
Does Google-synced passkeys on Google Password Manager still work even when your account is suspended?
Can't recover your accounts because you can't access your email, unless Google still allows existing email client access even when suspended but I'm not unfortunate enough to test this out.
fukka42
[dead]
jfoster
A major downside of any service once it becomes too large is that the overall complexity introduces lower reliability. From Google's perspective perhaps each rule and feature makes sense, but from a customer perspective, there might be too much risk of who-knows-what issues coming up. I don't think this is limited to Google. I miss the older, less complicated versions of most bigtech services; Facebook, Instagram, Google, Amazon, etc. Even looking at Vercel's project settings the other day I found myself thinking "hmm this is getting a bit unwieldy."
wouldbecouldbe
It just doesn’t make sense; they have so much money they are one of the few that can actually make slightly less profit and have good customer support. But they choose to treat everyone like a robot & allow scam ads
graemep
> they have so much money they are one of the few that can actually make slightly less profit and have good customer support.
They do not want "slightly less money", they want as much money as possible
whizzter
They are very well on their way to becoming the "never interact with Oracle" of the internet giants.
As far as I can see they are still living a bit off the "do no evil" of ages ago and latent animosity towards Microsoft, but they're creating an animosity that will take ages to erase unless they start putting some minimal amount of money into customer support today.
pickleglitch
>actually make slightly less profit
Blaspheme!
NoSalt
For YEARS I have been "screaming at the sky" (pun somewhat intended) about, what later became know as, cloud services. Family, friends, and coworkers would laugh at my resistance to use Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc. storage. Would tell me that I do not need a µSD card slot for my phone because these wonderful "free" services existed. Would mock me for continuing to purchase DVDs and CDs. I remember when Apple told me my @mac.com email address would be free forever. I feel that, as of late, I am being vindicated somewhat. With stories like this increasing. Stories of services eliminating the movies, games, music, books, storage they promised you would be around "forever", celebrities nude photos being hacked and put out there for everybody to see. Neither the cloud, and DEFINITELY not big business, is your friend at all. To them, you are just dollar signs until you aren't.
People consider google as a trusted partner whereas it is designed as a retail factory. Mass serving of millions and protectioms whose false positives can destroy the lives of thousands. Still they are statistically correct. Nuking everything instead of the offending service? Convenient fir them. Unavailable support reps? Convenient for them? Meaningless automated answers? Convenient for them. Its not a solid system that has defects, it was designed that way. Their unavailability and abrupt cruelty does not serve as cost optimisation, it serves as liability optimisation.