It's surprisingly easy, just time-involved, to sue large corporations in small claims, at least in some jurisdictions. Yes, they've got lawyers, but if you have a case you may still win. I sued one of the largest telecoms in Canada for not honouring a verbal contract, and won quite easily once I proved the facts in dispute. Businesses assume people won't have the commitment to carry through and actually take them to court over malfeasance. Probably mostly correctly. I'm not sure it was really worth the hassle.

Out of curiosity...how did you prove a verbal contract? Recordings? 3rd person present as witness? Protocol from the verbal contract mailed to yourself?

I actually had a similar case with AT&T, except they went back and listened to their recording of the call and confirmed the promise. No need to sue.

Wow that seems like a first, for once, finally, additional collected information was used to absolve someone. You are a lucky guy :D

Oh, it took some persistence and definitely wasn't a short process.

But damn was it satisfying.

I had a recording of the call.

Google is not a typical large corp though. They will spend millions on top lawyers for even small cases even if settling costs far less, just to make a point that they do not lose. If a company shows a willingness to settle or they they lose easily, then that makes them vulnerable to future litigation. Contingency lawyers will not take on companies that do not lose or settle.

And you know this because?

I don't agree with the parent's way to put it, however, there is at least some truth.

There as been an interesting case - Aaron Greenspan vs Google: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-google-bothered-to-ap_b_2.... It's a very interesting and even entertaining read.

You're replying to a comment that says "in small claims" and lawyers don't appear in small claims court. Though I don't know about winning vs Google there, just that it's worked against Uber.

I should have probably have noted that in most places, slander is not handled in small claims anyway. And lawyers can and do appear in small claims. If you sue a larger company, large enough to have a legal department, then someone from their legal department will probably show up to defend. You can consult or bring your own lawyer, too. A well-designed small claims court system keeps matters of law questions to a minimum, which usually makes it straightforward enough you can't drown it in paperwork. Here, there's a limit on how much you can spend on costs, for example. So no massive team of lawyers seeking depositions and hired expert witnesses. And as always, if it gets appealed, then who knows?

It's disturbing how often people infer that Google is impervious to the law.

That would req. showing that law was broken. I don't think in this case it was. More like a mistake.

Mistakes can be illegal. Intent only matters for small subset of laws.

If Google refused to fix it, it might be different. But I expect that, if someone were to file a suit, not even trying to get it fixed wouldn't be seen as acting in good faith.

Does every person who is impacted by this kind of thing have the responsibility to do Google's QC for them? What about people who never notice it? Maybe a lawsuit would be hopeless, but it sure would be nice to see some kind of real consequences here.

How do you even contact Google about an issue like this in the first place? My only communication with Google in the capacity of a user has been automated messages.

Meanwhile sending an email to Google asking for something to be fixed, could be seen as an act of insanity.