Not the law. Google having root access on 2.5 billion android devices.

The law didn't allow Uber to greyball either. It did though.

This is a risk Google fully recognizes - it's why Google prevents f droid from updating apps one by one without user input. That's a privilege reserved exclusively for google play services.

If Google is asserting non-contractual rights, I'd like to know what they are.

Edit: I edited this comment because it was rude, and that was not my intent.

The governing law that would protect people is a lot of things, and ToS is the least of it. The Wiretap Act applies, for example.

I'm afraid I disagree. Google running code on your phone implies it believes you have consented to that. That consent was not given in the app store, so it must have come from the ToS.

Consent is an exception to virtually every protection that exists: Wiretap Act, state wiretapping laws, the CFAA, and state computer trespass laws. Remember, consent is the difference between a home invasion and a dinner party.

So it seems that Google would have to cook up a pretty implausible stopping principle to argue that whatever allows them to do this does not also enable the hypothetical I described above.

You're making out like code is code and there aren't already existing lines and stopping principles, which just isn't true on its face.