Not apologizing for Google but if you give out too many details of why you banned someone you give people a) leverage in a lawsuit, b) information on what you are what suspect triggers they are looking for, making it easier for people to avoid automated detectoin.

I acknowledge that those points are true, but IMO, that should just be too bad for Google and they should have to tell anyway.

Maybe so, but then actual UX suffers as a result of developers crafting their way out of automated and manual detection. Every time they get killed, create another account, implement the obfuscation while still exploring users with shady monetization, make money until found again in months or years.

You only give people details if they're a good-faith actor. If a spam bot leaves garbage on my blog, I don't configure my spam filter to send them the exact words and phrases that get them detected.

I don't know anything about this company, but the other comments are giving the vibe that this company is similar in social status to a spam bot and Google's customer support is correct to cut them off with no explanation.

Mobile stores are different. If Google explains details, they will understand how google found out so they will develop better tactics to not be banned next time.

Then Google will just have to work harder. Banning legitimate customers over automation failures is not a thing that should be considered acceptable or legal.

"legitimate customers"

Do you think Google's bans have a 0% false positive rate?