"The relevant regulator not the courts"

Here in the US, that's a non-starter.

you didn't really answer my question, and it also seems like the claim that there was no harm done is a bit specious, enough users to form a class certainly seem to feel harmed.

Feeling harmed and actually being harmed are different things.

There is also something to be said about the general societal ill of feeling entitled to compensation for the slightest of perceived harms.

(1) If the 'you are the product' maxim is true, then this behaviour of GOOG is equivalent to breaking, entering and stealing the product.

(2) This is not an imaginary slight, a corporation wrote a piece of code with a clear intent to bypass a security setting on a user's device. Would the roles be reversed, charges would be brought against human without the need to prove harm or harmful intent -- DCMA is broad enough for that. Why should GOOG be less burdened by its unethical behaviour?

> Feeling harmed and actually being harmed are different things.

this seems almost non-sequitur. either way, it is the court's purpose to ascertain harm and any consequent penalties (if any).

Exactly this: If one group feels harmed and another group asserts that there was no harm then the courts exist to solve this exact problem.

Still haven't answered my question about how individuals can pursue legal recourse against a large company without allowing class actions to exist.