Slashdot Mirror


Google Gets Consumer Service Ultimatum From German Consumer Groups

An anonymous reader writes "Google received an ultimatum Thursday from German consumer organizations that want it to start answering questions from its users via email. The Federation of German Consumer Organizations (VZBV) has asked Google to sign an undertaking that it will provide customer service by responding individually to users questions sent by email, said Carola Elbrecht, VZBV's project manager for consumer rights in the digital world at the VZBV. Signing such a document would expose Google to fines if it breached the undertaking. On the other hand, said Elbrecht, 'If Google does not sign it, we're going to court.'"

12 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. You know... by MrDoh! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That doesn't sound entirely unreasonable. If it pushes Google to have a bit more of a responsive front end to their customers, then... I'm ok with that. Though I'd also see Google's side of it if they insisted on a GMail/G+ account to prove they are a valid customer and not MS spam bots!

    --
    Waiting for an amusing sig.
    1. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sue them for breaking german law. The Telemediengesetz (German Teleservices Act) expressly demand that any service provider must provide direct contact methods.

    2. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wrong. Yes the law is valid and must be complied to even if your service is free. And make no mistake, Google is a multi-billion dollar company, not some charity organisation run by goodwill. They a huge company and can afford customer care.

    3. Re:You know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. Google has to "use it or leave". Comply toi german law or don't do business in Germany. Not the other way round.

      A company doing business in the USA has to comply to the stupid COPA law or can't do business there. Simple. Just the same

    4. Re:You know... by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The issue is "customer." The customers for Google are the advertisers, not the users. The US is about the only place that allows the separation of "user" from "customer" with any meaning. Europe and most other places considers the user the customer, even if they are not paying for it. It's yet another US vs the world definition war.

    5. Re:You know... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Population of Germany - 81.7 million
      Population of the world - 6973.7 million

      I don't think losing Germany would make much of an impact.

      Incorrect calculation.

      GWP: 70,201 GUSD
      GDP of Germany: 3,604 GUSD

      I.E. Germany is about 5% of the world enconomy (for 1% of the population).

      You don't just chuck away one dollar in every 20.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    6. Re:You know... by lcam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you have a gmail account, you are google's client and have agreed to their term of service. There is an exchange of benefits between you and Google even if money isn't directly exchanged. What matters is the exchange of consideration which is the equivalent of value.

      I would contend that if you had to click through any term of service you can rightly claim you are a customer.

  2. Re:I don't get it by Lundse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is not free. You are paying with your privacy and helping them build one of the largest and most interesting databases in the world. If they believe they have any right to do anything with any of your data, this must stem from a claim that there is some sort of contract. If the end user has no way to contact Google (beyond getting a formulaic donotreply-email), he or she has no way to force Google to uphold their end. Without such measures, the contact cannot be binding, and without any attempt to allow the user such measures, Google could even be acting in bad faith.

    --
    IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
  3. Re:Customer are people who pay money. by lennier1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's far from free. You simply pay with your personal information instead of your wallet.

  4. Re:what ? by dingen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well apparently the law in Germany says you can't provide a service without having a method for customers to contact the provider directly. And why not? Why would it be so strange to be able to call Google up with a question or send them an e-mail and get a response?

    --
    Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
  5. UK also by Alain+Williams · · Score: 4, Insightful

    UK law also has a similar provision in the UK's E-Commerce Regulations (scroll down to Minimum information to be provided). Google does not comply, I talked to a Google employee who told me, something like, that it was not convenient/efficient and that I should use a web form.

    I don't like putting questions via web form since I don't get to keep a copy as I do when I send email.

  6. Re:Anything that states it has to be free? by andrewbaldwin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The annoying entitled freeloaders are simply asking for what they are entitled to under local laws.

    If Google (or anyone else) doesn't like it they're free to stop doing business in that locality; it is their choice to weigh up the benefits and costs of operating there but if they do choose to do so then they must abide by local laws.

    Are you saying to take into account the costs is not a valid thought process?

    I suspect that a company as big and successful as Google is well aware of the costs of doing business and, as they are continuing to operate there, have assessed them as being worth bearing.

    In a nutshell, if you work in country X you must obey the laws there - no matter how big or self important you see yourself; the cultural imperialism of your home country's attitudes to laws and business are quite frankly irrelevant. If I set up a business in the US deliberately flouting the laws (e.g. selling Cuban cigars) I'd expect to get some trouble from the law, even if my main offices were located in a separate country.