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

(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?

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