(2) This is a requirement for anybody who offers services that are generally provided for a fee, even if in this particular instance it is offered for free (e.g. because it is financed through advertising or a freemium model). See §5 of the German Telemedia Act [1].

[1] http://www.cgerli.org/fileadmin/user_upload/interne_Dokument...

2. details which permit rapid electronic contact and direct communication with them, including the electronic mail address

( fee is emphasized by me )

I would argue that free services do not fall under this rule.

(c) the details of the service provider, including his electronic mail address, which allow him to be contacted rapidly and communicated with in a direct and effective manner;

Replying with an automated answer saying that actual human response is not an option, is certainly not direct and effective.

(generally is emphasized by me)

The argument can be made that showing someone ads in return for services is offering things commercially. C.f. free tv channels with ad-breaks.

Y'know, I'm starting to question this oft-repeated adage. If websites are demanding that I watch their ads (although Google so far doesn't and lets me adblock in peace), then I'm a customer. I'm paying with my attention for the website's service. I'm doing something I wouldn't otherwise do in exchange for a service.

So I say people watching Google's ads are as much their customers as the people paying Google to put up those ads. If Google sufficiently angers either group, they lose business.