It sounds like they've already contacted support. They said "Google support is refusing to let us know what happened" and "no one is providing us any answers or providing support".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial

It's amazing that Google doesn't get sued in a case like this, regardless of what's in the ToS.

If one of my employees did something bad, I would want warnings and ultimately a "hey, since your employees cannot behave, we're shutting your account as of <date> and have limited <functions> until then so you can migrate your company to another service.

This sort of binary response is why I will never commit to Google, and am increasingly evaluate the likelihood of ban when selecting cloud services.

Particularly since these bans are immediate, summary, and often based on algos, not humans.

...and this isn't just unfounded fear. We've had our Google My Business listings suspended when we had issues with our 2FA/recovery details. That was 4 months ago, and support also said they could do nothing, and My Business support never responded.

> Do you have sales people? Enable any "mail merge" or "customer contact" apps lately?

Cool so Google does not like what I do to my mailbox? I know, some of those apps are crap, but banning an entire org because of that?

Good to know that even paying customers are treated by Google as the product

I won't get in to specifics, but the first few times the user will get spanked. If you keep reenabling accounts that send spam, eventually the domain as a whole gets spanked.

The purpose of an account lockout is either:

1. Stop a clear abuser from trashing the network, e.g. by sending spam that will get Google IPs blacklisted (yes this happens, there are no special breaks for Google).

2. Challenge an account in such a way that false positives have a chance to 'clear their name' by doing things that serial abusers have difficulty with, like passing phone verification or in the good old days, solving CAPTCHAs.

Virtually all responses to service violations in the consumer world are (2). They're automated, people pass the challenge when they log in and never think about it again so you just don't hear about it.

Corporate services pose special problems. Companies expect to be able to automatically create large numbers of accounts using APIs, which is something not allowed for consumer accounts. The latter are carefully monitored, throttled, and ultimately the services may just refuse to let you create an account. Tough cookies. That doesn't work for GSuite domains where the administration is devolved, so what happens when spammers notice this and create such domains then add lots of users at once? Yes they're meant to pay, but some abusers can get past CC fraud checks and other mechanisms that would otherwise make this approach too expensive.

Unfortunately the rapid, automated nature of abuse means that the response also has to be rapid and automated. It's not as easy as saying, hmm, foobar.com looks suspicious, let's get a trained expert to mount an investigation. By the time the specialist has woken up and got into the office the attack is over already and you sent 10 million spams or hosted 50,000 phishing sites. That's the flip side of very scalable systems with convenient signup, in which the admins don't suffer any consequences of abuse they proxy or allow (i.e. when you buy GSuite part of what you're buying is Google's spam reputation). That's also why these stories so often resolve with an ending like "A googler got in touch and we're back in now". This creates the impression that the only way to get support is to flag it up on Hacker News or Twitter. That's sometimes true for consumer services where getting people to look at your case is harder but for companies with support contracts, it's often just due to the time lag involved between someone doing a manual investigation and resolving it.

This

> there are no special breaks for Google).

and this are not the same thing. There are absolutely "special breaks" for Google, particularly (though not solely) since they are now the server of choice for a huge percentage of the email being sent and received, whether @gmail.com or on Gsuite accounts of various types.

So even if there were some kind of massive spam event, Google isn't going to block emails from its own IP blocks or domains from reaching Gmail or Gsuite customers. And frankly, I would be shocked if any of the various DNS blocklists that people use for determining who's a dirty spammer would actually put a Google IP block on there without massive and obvious changes in Googles mode of operation.

Meanwhile, us mere mortals, if we dare to try to set up our own mail server, can be listed in a blacklist because of a) something the previous owner of the IP address did, b) something someone else in the same class B block did, or c) something that was never expected before, but now because of escalation by spammers, it's required without any documentation. And then the blacklist just doesn't respond to requests for reconsideration or elaboration because obviously, we're dirty spammers, and why should we be listened to?

When I worked there it absolutely did do this. Yes it seemed stupid to me at first too, but all it takes to end up like that is to decide not to give yourself unfair special exceptions to your own policies, which is how things should be!

frankly, I would be shocked if any of the various DNS blocklists that people use for determining who's a dirty spammer would actually put a Google IP block on there

Be shocked. It did happen when a particularly clever spammer got through the controls. There are no bits of logic in most email servers that say "if IP is owned by Google, ignore". Spam filters are all relative. If senders send a lot more good mail than bad, they're good. If they send a lot more bad mail than good, they're bad. Google IPs are rarely blocked because they send a lot of good mail and invest a huge amount of money and time in keeping it that way.

It's not your mailbox with Google.

If it is indeed abuse related (whether there was any abuse or Google's algorithm just decided there was some abuse) then telling the abuser what got them banned is counterproductive from Google's PoV. Same reason reddit does vote fudging.

Do schools or parents not teach philosophy or ethics to these FAANG employees?

You haven't been to school this century, have you.

Also at minimum I'd think I'd allow them access to past emails as a default.