Google Bans Hundreds Of Pixel Phone Resellers From Their Google Accounts (theguardian.com)

Hundreds of Google users lost their access to their emails, photos, documents, "and anything else linked to their Google identity," wrote the Guardian last week, reporting on "hundreds of people who took advantage of a loophole in US sales tax to make a small profit on Pixel phones" -- and got all of the Google accounts suspended. Long-time Slashdot reader RockDoctor writes: "The Google customers had all bought the phones from the company's Project Fi mobile carrier, and had them shipped directly to a reseller in New Hampshire, a US state with no sales tax. In return, the reseller split the profit with the customers," the Guardian adds.

People might ask, in a hurt tone of voice, "why are you doing this to me?" To which the obvious answer is "because we can, and you agreed to these (link to 3000 pages of text) terms and conditions, including our ability to do this"... The only question has been "When?", never "If?"
Update: Google "has reviewed banned users' appeals and re-enabled their accounts," reports The Guardian.

Comments

Click bait much?

[rsilvergun]

this is already a non story. Google is reactivating the accounts so long as the users promise not to do it again. They'll flush out the shill accounts and give everyone else a smack on the wrist for doing something that's pretty self evidently wrong (scalping).

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this scalping? If I buy a sporting events ticket, have it shipped to someone in New Hampshire so I don't get charged sales tax, and that person then ships it back to me for my own personal use, no scalping has occurred. Now if I then went on to resell that ticket, yes, scalping will likely ensue. But these people buying the phones aren't reselling them. So there is no scalping.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then maybe you should have read the article?

"The Google customers had all bought the phones from the company’s Project Fi mobile carrier, and had them shipped directly to a reseller in New Hampshire"

People who did what you have described did not have their accounts banned.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously?! The part of "split the profits" actually places it under the tag. They didn't just shipped it to New Hampshire and then forward to their address "for their own personal use", they shared the profits. Sorry, scalping it is.

Re:Click bait much?

[Calydor]

So if they had it shipped to a friend in New Hampshire and slipped him a ten dollar bill next time they saw him in return for the phone, then what?

Re:Click bait much?

[mi]

Though being a monopoly is not illegal, using one's monopoly position in one market to break into another is. That was the goverment's claim against Microsoft, which was (alleged to) using their monopoly in desktop operating systems to break into web-browsers... We all cheered the government's prosecution of the company here.

Now, Google are using their monopoly in search-engine market, to gain in the market of cellular phones and associated services... And we are supposed to give them a pass?

self evidently wrong (scalping).

Scalping is not at all "self evidently wrong"...

Re:Click bait much?

[cayenne8]

I agree.

If nothing illegal was done here...what's the problem?

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like keeping the profits in Europe while sales happen in the States ... oh I see what are they doing here;)

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, something unlawful *may* have occurred here, provided that the purchasers reside in states other than New Hampshire that require a use tax for anything purchased out of state that is brought into state, and the purchasers did not pay said tax. It's not really ever enforced, but it is unlawful.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

What they're doing here has nothing to do with the search engine.

It's the Google account as an online identity tying together your email and a bunch of other services that's the real leverage point here.

At its core, this is about GMail.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, it's stupid to link all those account types together. People with digital street smarts wouldn't experience such a deactivation as much more than an inconvenience.

I have lots of accounts. I have no trouble keeping track of them because I am not an idiot. Sloth is the only force that prevents people from applying the power of their brains to the task of figuring out how to protect themselves in the digital age. I have zero sympathy.

Re:Click bait much?

[phantomfive]

"The Google customers had all bought the phones from the company’s Project Fi mobile carrier, and had them shipped directly to a reseller in New Hampshire"

I'm actually really having trouble seeing why this is a problem.

Re:Click bait much?

[JBMcB]

They'll flush out the shill accounts and give everyone else a smack on the wrist for doing something that's pretty self evidently wrong (scalping).

Taking advantage of differing tax rates isn't scalping, it's arbitrage.

Re:Click bait much?

[JaredOfEuropa]

It certainly is a story. Maybe not because of the rights and wrongs of avoiding taxes or Google's reaction, but because this ought to serve as a wake-up call for anyone relying on an external party for important data or services, especially in cases when it is not easy or possible to switch services or retrieve the data. If the tems of service allow a provider to revoke your access whenever they feel like it, then do not put your data there. And even when that's not allowed under the terms of service, keep in mind that a company can go broke or simply suspend its service in any case.

Re:Click bait much?

[Daemonik]

1) Google is not a monopoly. If you even understood what monopoly means you'd realize this just looking at your computer where the desktop uses Bing or Cortana and you can download at least 4 browsers that use different search engines by default. They're not even a monopoly on phones because Apple.

2) It doesn't matter if scalping is "self evidently" wrong. It's against the laws of numerous states (IANAL but likely all 50).

Re:Click bait much?

[Half-pint HAL]

Then they're fine. Google's sales condition was that buyers “may only purchase Devices for [their] personal use [and] may not commercially resell any Device”. Note that word "commercially". Under consumer law, you can sell your own stuff (doctrine of first sale) so they can't stop you selling privately. Google's clearly taking the position that if you're buying expressly to sell to another retailer, that's buying wholesale -- business-to-business -- and not covered by doctrine of first sale.

This is actually a very interesting point of law, and would make a fascinating test case. I think I'm on Google's side here -- one of the reasons consumer protection is so important is because customers rarely get to negotiate the terms. As the buyers couldn't negotiate the terms, the purchase of contract here was consumer and Google's Ts&Cs are effectively saying "this is not a wholesale contract. if you treat it like one it's void." which seems pretty valid to me.

Re:Click bait much?

[slashdice]

Next Up: Polls indicate Hillary! Clinton has an 90% chance of making history and winning tomorrow's election in a blowout. Mook the Mook says Trump the Chump should probably just concede and avoid the embarrassment!

Re:Click bait much?

[Half-pint HAL]

I agree.

If nothing illegal was done here...what's the problem?

As I've just commented above, maybe the law was broken. There is a huge difference in law between a retail contract and a business-to-business contract and the related rights. Google's Ts&Cs say no "commercial resale", specifically because they know that they can't ban private resale. But their standpoint is that any purchase with the express purpose of commercial resale is technically "wholesale" and not covered by the contract. This is potentially very important when it comes to transfer of rights and responsibilities (a complicated part of consumer protection legislation that is further confounded by state-level commerce laws).

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we do something about any monopoly company's monopoly on money being used to break into any other market whatsoever then?

Re:Click bait much?

[NatasRevol]

The problem is that Google doesn't like competition. And is a bully.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not seeing this "Bing" or "Cortana" that you are referring to. Are you speaking gibberish?

Re:Click bait much?

[ShanghaiBill]

something that's pretty self evidently wrong (scalping).

How is "scalping" self evidently wrong? If I own a ticket to a concert or sports event, why is it "wrong" for me to sell it at a market price?

Re:Click bait much?

[ewibble]

I don't know if this scalping but I don't know why scalping is self evidently wrong. Yes it may be illegal, but scalping is simply buying something and selling at a profit. I do not see why it is anybodies business what someone does with tickets after they buy them. If they wish to use them as toilet paper just to deny other people the ability to watch an event, so be it. That scenario is of course legal but selling at a profit isn't.

I do see scalping as slightly unethical, however I see other similar things that are perfectly legal, but much worse in my eyes, such as drug companies charging exorbitant prices for drug, in effect letting people die in order make some money. The difference is scalpers are generally small time businesses whereas drug companies are multi-billion dollar industries so they can afford to buy off politicians, oops I meant to say lobby.

From the summary, no I didn't read the article. All these people did was take advantage of a tax loophole, google or the president elect of course would never do such a thing,

Re: Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or keeping the tax in the US and selling in europe. That is also a thing

Re:Click bait much?

[TheRaven64]

Mod this up. That's precisely the point. Whether this particular excuse is a good reason for Google to close the accounts is beside the point. Google, Facebook, and friends explicitly reserve the right to close your account for no reason. If you depend on a GMail or Facebook account for business or for keeping in contact with friends then this should serve as a warning. It's possible to use GMail safely if you buy your own domain and point it at Google's servers, sync your mail with IMAP, and keep your contacts locally, but unless you're doing this you're at the whim of Google deciding that you no longer deserve email (and even in this case you'll experience a few days of downtime until you transfer to another provider and update your DNS records). With Facebook, there's no alternative: if they decide that they don't like you then you lose access to anyone that you have only Facebook contact details for.

Re:Click bait much?

[Kiwikwi]

How is "scalping" self evidently wrong? If I own a ticket to a concert or sports event, why is it "wrong" for me to sell it at a market price?

Because you're abusing a market failure, and in fact helping to create it in the first place. You're inserting yourself in the distribution chain, but not adding anything of value.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a fucking moron?

Re:Click bait much?

[spire3661]

Not alleged, Microsoft was CONVICTED.

Re:Click bait much?

[skids]

This is a prime example of why IDPs should just be IDPs and nothing else. Do one thing and do it well, separation of responsibilities, etc.

Re:Click bait much?

[CaptainDork]

And you have little else.

Mom and Pop don't want to be a goddam self-inflated script kiddie like you pretend to be.

They just want to sign up for stuff and use all that crap like it was an appliance.

When Google pulls the plug on a single Gmail account, it can have far-reaching consequences.

Mom and Pop don't know that Google owns YouTube where they stored all the kid's birthday parties, Google+ where they keep in touch with kids and grand kids, Google Docs where they share out documents, Google Drive where they store very important family photos, videos, etc., and there's another huge risk:

They don't know that they risked a LOT by using their Gmail account to sign up to log in to their bank, cable, insurance, medical, Android, Kindle, smart phone, and they don't appreciate that they used that same risk-infested Gmail account as a password-recovery back door to other sites.

The big fuck-up here was hitting the end user. That's the CUSTOMER. They should have stopped recourse with the NH re-seller.

Thanks for playing.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

A non-story? A company selling a phone is able to whimsically execute a "digital death penalty" over a rule they have no right to make, and that's not a story? The real story is how much people will allow companies like Google to control their lives. The real problem is that probably none of these people will have the sense to dump Google. How did we arrive at this situation where it's even possible for a commercial entity to erase one's communication history, much less that such an action is accepted as their right according to TOS mumbo jumbo?

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

how is that a non story? the fact they have the power and show a willingness to use is most definitely a story.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm actually really having trouble seeing why this is a problem.

Because real customers (users of the phone, not resellers) will have to pay 2x to 4x price than what Google charges for the phones. The scalpers make a much higher profit margin than the manufacturer, Google. Don't you see the ripoff?

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

For fucks sake. This not a monopoly bullshit has been argued on here for 15 bloody years (though in those days it was Microsoft and their OS market share). Legally and economically, they control a sufficient amount of the search engine market to be treated as a monopoly. So, yes, they are indeed a monopoly in the search engine market.

You can bitch about it not matching the strict dictionary definition of them having 100% control of the market, but that doesn't matter, they are considered to be a monopoly.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is interesting because the users were banned form their account for doing something that should be outside the prevue of Google. This is why I don't use google anymore for anything important. It is like when they were trying to make people use Google+, then said if anyone did anything they did not like they would be banned. Or when they pushed their groups and then canceled.

Re:Click bait much?

[swb]

Scalping -- the resale of tickets above face value -- is perfectly legal in Minnesota.

And it wouldn't exist at all if the tickets were priced originally relative to demand or if they used a reverse auction process that started at very high prices and reduced them in step with demand. The notion that popular tickets should be cheap and abundant is absurd.

Re:Click bait much?

[93 Escort Wagon]

Because you're abusing a market failure, and in fact helping to create it in the first place. You're inserting yourself in the distribution chain, but not adding anything of value.

This is incorrect. The scalper is providing a ticket to someone who otherwise would have been unable to obtain a ticket he desires - that is definitely value.

If there is an ethical issue with scalping, it is that some entities attempt to create artificial scarcity by purchasing huge numbers of tickets, usually indirectly through a large number of secondary agents (which is perhaps relevant to this particular news story). However it's harder to argue that an individual selling a few tickets he purchased himself is doing anything wrong, other than interfering with some ticket seller's licensing deal.

Re:Click bait much?

[mi]

Google is not a monopoly.

Yes, they are. Hint, it does not have to be 100% — Microsoft's hold on the desktop operating systems was not universal either. I for one, had used FreeBSD exclusively since 1993, and there were also MacOS and, gasp, Linux. It did not help Microsoft and they got convicted of abusing their monopoly.

It doesn't matter if scalping is "self evidently" wrong.

Whether it matters or not, the OP claimed, that it is. And that was simply incorrect.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like they are ever going to use a google account for anything important again.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't buy into this non-sense. I'm not buying into Google's terms and conditions. If they sold a product the consumer has the right of resale regardless of what was in the terms of service. You can put whatever you like in a TOS and that doesn't make it legal.

"The first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. 109, provides that an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from the copyright holder receives the right to sell, display or otherwise dispose of that particular copy, notwithstanding the interests of the copyright owner."

Google may or may not be committing a crime blocking users from its site/services under normal conditions though. However they may be breaking the law (truth-in-advertising laws) because the purchaser has reasonable expectation to be able to use the services associated and advertised with their phone.

Re:Click bait much?

[rtb61]

No, it is theft. Basically you want to steal your states services and infrastructure whilst other residents of your state pay your taxes. Not arbitrage unless the definition of arbitrage is being an arse hat.

Re:Click bait much?

[Kiwikwi]

The scalper is providing a ticket to someone who otherwise would have been unable to obtain a ticket he desires

Huh? Without the scalper, that someone could have bought the ticket directly from the supplier, at a lower price.

Anyway, I'm not sure what's described in the story qualifies as scalping... The Pixel is not in limited supply (at least not for people with a little patience), and it's not clear at all that the prices were marked up – instead, the resellers seem to have undercut Google's prices by exploiting a tax loophole.

Google's ban on commercial resale is of course absurd, and I honestly thought that US law had firmly established (e.g. through the first sale doctrine) that (barring the occasional anti-scalping laws mentioned elsewhere) once you sell a physical good to someone, they can do whatever the hell they want with it, including reselling it. (But then, US law has also repeatedly established that you can void just about any legal right simply by clicking "I agree" beneath an impenetrable EULA, so maybe Google is in the clear...)

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here is the same regardless of the 'clickbait-y' news. Google has so much power over users that they can destroy your online identity, take away personal items (pictures/emails are personal, come on), based on what someone did with their purchased hardware. This isnt an issue for you?

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

What they're doing here has nothing to do with the search engine.

It's the Google account as an online identity tying together your email and a bunch of other services that's the real leverage point here.

I am an android user and don't recall seeing scandals of account suspensions for MS-Live / Hotmail or Apple ecosystem users, for what it's worth. Google exceeds its power by silently nuking users who need to log in to get Apps, email and potentially social media.
For years, the Nymwars killed your Google accounts when a fake name was found (or unfortunate false positives such as real native american designations).
Youtube / Gmail / old-days' Picasa / G+ users need to compartmentalize their data across several different Google accounts to minimize collateral in this kind of situation, though it's a pain. What will be a pain to avoid? they day when Google decides to use their cookie and other datamining to round up all the accounts you use from one location / browser to apply a single punishment across all your accounts.
email redundancy cannot be trusted unless you keep a secondary account at a different service provider, for similar reasons.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, so it's okay if the wrongdoing is undone fast enough. Nice. Can I have your wallet? You must promise not to tell the cops if I give it back within six hours.

Re:Click bait much?

[jrumney]

The scalper is providing a ticket to someone who otherwise would have been unable to obtain a ticket he desires

He is only unable to obtain that ticket because the scalper has it.

Re: Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly the reason why I own the domain for all my email addresses. I can simply switch the mail records to another service at will should anything happen to it.

Re:Click bait much?

[Gussington]

I agree.

If nothing illegal was done here...what's the problem?

I can't see any problem in this particular case, but I do see a problem with the logic of "not illegal, not a problem".
A Venn diagram of 'things that are illegal' and 'things that are a problem' would show they don't overlap 100%.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Google is not a monopoly. If you even understood what monopoly means you'd realize this just looking at your computer where the desktop uses Bing or Cortana and you can download at least 4 browsers that use different search engines by default. They're not even a monopoly on phones because Apple.

What is your definition of a monopoly then? Because based on your description here Microsoft was never a monopoly either because Apple, BSD, Linux, Solaris etc

You are saying other people dont understand what monopoly means so let's here you define what you think it means.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the real point of the story is:
1) Don't do stupid shit on services you don't know (or maybe even services you own).
2) Make a fake account to do questionable businesses on.
3) Don't intermingle the accounts, and careful in setting one as the backup of the other.
Thinking you can get away screwing with things you don't own is so 1990s. It is just downright stupid to engage in questionable behavior on your main channel of communication in this day and age.

Re:Click bait much?

[93 Escort Wagon]

Huh? Without the scalper, that someone could have bought the ticket directly from the supplier, at a lower price.

I realize this is Slashdot, but - haven't you ever bought tickets to a concert or game, only to find out later you couldn't attend (or to have a friend or date bomb out on you)? If you sell those tickets, you're scalping.

When I've been in that situation, I've just given the tickets away... but if I'd chosen to re-sell them, I don't think I'd be committing some grievous moral wrong.

Re:Click bait much?

[khchung]

Google is reactivating the accounts so long as the users promise not to do it again.

This IS a story, since when did Google become law enforcement?

Imagine the outrage here if Apple did the same thing.

Re:Click bait much?

[ShanghaiBill]

Huh? Without the scalper, that someone could have bought the ticket directly from the supplier, at a lower price.

No. The lower price leads to higher demand, so more people want the tickets than there are tickets available. That is why the scalper can make money. If the tickets were priced properly in the first place, there would be no way for scalpers to make money. Do you see scalpers outside the grocery store selling milk at a mark-up? Of course not.

Because of the higher demand, there must be some other way than price to control demand. Usually it is willingness to stand in line and squander time instead of money. But some people value their time, and would prefer to just pay the market price instead, thus the demand for scalpers, who provide a useful service to those people.

Re:Click bait much?

[rahvin112]

They aren't stopping anyone from selling the phones. They are simply saying doing so violates their TOS and they won't provide you software services anymore. They are under no obligation to provide software services and by violating their TOS you take the risk that they decide not to provide those services. That's the risk you take when you aren't a paying customer, Google's customers are their advertisers, not you.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's precisely the point.

No. It's a point. Not the point.

The point is that one should be careful about doing absolutely everything in order to squeeze out an extra buck or two in every single situation, especially if entering areas which are very clearly wrong or at the very least questionable.

Sooner or later, it is going to bite you, and you will have to take responsibility for your actions, whatever the consequences may be.

Familiar with that concept? Personal responsibility for your own actions?

The fuckwits doing what triggered this have hopefully learned a lesson.

You, apparently, have not.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the phones are automatically associated with the buyers account? (at least in some cases). This would mean the account is now essentially compromised...

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

they didn't get the phone back, it was sold. So in keeping your analogy: you have it sent to a friend in NH, who sells the phone immediately upon arriving for a huge markup and slips you five dollars plus your cost next time you see him.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe the band doesn't want to have only the one-percenters (or maybe five-percenters) in the audience? If they sell for a cheaper price they can allow a larger audience access to a live show, which binds their fans for further CD sales, merchandise, ...
Maybe they do so only for one show. They iinvent a system that anyone can get up to five tickets for a price reasonable for the general population.

Now someone offers those "normals" to give them a buck or two for every ticket they have directly sent to them - and then resells those tickets to the one-percenters. Since every ticket he resells gets a somehundred percent markup he can afford to only resell a few ten percents of those tickets he got.

Result: empty auditorium *and* fans which are yelling at the band.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

but you hadn't sent the tickets *at purchase* to someone offering you a buck for each ticket. You didn't have the *intent* to resell when you bought them.

Huge difference - at least ethically.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

I read somewhere that the phones (sometimes?) were connected with the sellers accounts - so they effectively had breached accounts. If true then what google did was right: block those accounts until this connection is deleted.

Re:Click bait much?

[djinn6]

Huh? Without the scalper, that someone could have bought the ticket directly from the supplier, at a lower price.

That's simply not true. If there's 200 people who want tickets and only 100 to go around, 100 people will have no tickets. Someone, somewhere, has to choose who gets a ticket and who doesn't. There's no way around that.

Generally, in a capitalist society, scarce goods are distributed according to the buyer's willingness to pay, because that system works really well. Those who really need it will pay more to get it, while those who could live without it goes without. Everyone is happy (or at least not too unhappy). You can pick some other criteria to choose your buyers, but now the burden is on you to show that that system produces a better outcome, that the people who want to go the most gets to go.

Re:Click bait much?

[djinn6]

The scalper only has the ticket for a short while. He has to sell the ticket to make a profit. Eventually, someone who wants the ticket will get it.

Re:Click bait much?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Because real customers (users of the phone, not resellers) will have to pay 2x to 4x price than what Google charges for the phones.

Are you seriously claiming that some of the buyers are paying...what, three thousand dollars for the phone? Care to list any actual examples?

Re:Click bait much?

[edtice1559]

This is only a sensible thing to do if you are also going to break the law and not file and pay the use tax in your state of residence. So all of these transactions are illegal. If Google didn't block the accounts, they could also be liable in a contributory way. What else could they possibly do? The real answer for the US is to stop having different state/local sales tax and set a national policy where money gets distributed. Sadly that would probably turn into a bureaucratic, inefficient nightmare, so maybe there's no good solution. But you can't evade the taxes this way and expect Google to take a risk and ignore it.

Re:Click bait much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look , an armchair lawyer talking out his ass.

You quote an irrelevant tidbit of federal law and declare you know best? Right...

Better luck next time.

Re:Click bait much?

[Half-pint HAL]

You could level similar accusations at me, to be fair...

Re:Click bait much?

[Half-pint HAL]

I don't buy into this non-sense. I'm not buying into Google's terms and conditions. If they sold a product the consumer has the right of resale regardless of what was in the terms of service. You can put whatever you like in a TOS and that doesn't make it legal.

"The first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. 109, provides that an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from the copyright holder receives the right to sell, display or otherwise dispose of that particular copy, notwithstanding the interests of the copyright owner."

Actually, you seem to be right, but the appropriate citation would be Bobbs-Merrill Co. Vs Straus, which established the doctrine of first sale in the context of wholesale agreements. Indeed, no law was broken.

Re:Click bait much?

[JesseMcDonald]

Huh? Without the scalper, that someone could have bought the ticket directly from the supplier, at a lower price.

Only given an abundant supply of tickets. More likely, someone else might have bought the tickets who wasn't quite as interested in the show, but decided to go anyway simply because the tickets were cheap. Scalpers prevent this "priority inversion" by buying up underpriced tickets and reselling them at market price, thus ensuring that those with the greatest effective demand for the tickets are able to attend. The only problem with this scenario is one of the venue's own making—by underpricing their tickets they ensure that the difference is payed to the scalpers, when it could have gone to support the venue and the performers instead.

There are arguments both ways, of course; efficient allocation of resources is not always the highest priority for those putting on the show. For example, performers might wish to keep ticket prices low so that their less wealthy fans have a chance to attend, thus raising less money through ticket sales and rationing the tickets by lottery (or by willingness to show up early and stand in line for hours... thus punishing fans with less free time) rather than ability and willingness to pay. I have no problem with that goal, but rather than an unjust and intrusive legal prohibition on "scalping" I'd rather see venues tie tickets to specific attendees if they want to control resale. They have every right to only accept tickets with a matching photo ID. It makes no sense to sell generic tickets anyone can use while attempting to limit third-party transactions involving those tickets.

Re:Click bait much?

[RockDoctor]

OP here.

I've since been told that Google are indeed rolling back to some degree on this. (Been doing thing in "real life" for the last couple of days, so haven't been online.)

OTOH, Even if the roll back this time, they still retain the capacity to do this again in the future. Which is why I trust them as much as I trust any other online (or indeed, real-world) company. And I maintain my backups on organised rust, keep email addresses in multiple countries, and bank accounts in multiple countries too. Online banking ... I do by going to the counter to tell them to disable online banking (again!) and do whatever seems necessary at the time.

Re:Click bait much?

[samwichse]

Like car dealerships!

Re: Click bait much?

[cthulhu11]

? Why the fuck would someone not just buy the PoS from Google directly instead of some reseller?

Is this Soviet Russia?

[TimothyHollins]

Since when was it OK to break the spirit of the law? Is this some post-Trump perspective where tax avoidance is a virtue?

I can see the problem with Google acting as a vigilante, but taking the side of those that attempt to circumvent US law seems almost anarchistic. Surely "because it's not *technically* illegal" is a childish defense.

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

"but taking the side of those that attempt to circumvent US law seems almost anarchistic" Have you SEEN the republican party of the last 8 years lol?

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reselling phones breaks the law? lolwut?

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

He said circumventing taxes circumvents the law, gentle (non) reader.

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[klingens]

In this case, it is ok ever since Google and its corporate brethren dodged paying taxes by playing shenanigans with the tax system in different countries. It's the same here: this worked cause some US state doesn't have a sales tax.
If Google can arbitrate taxes cause it's "technically not illegal", then so can their customers. Or do you think Google is allowed but their customers have to play by a different rule?

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever.

Surely it's a good warning against centralizing too much of your life to some 3rd party for-profit entity.

Particularly for people who sell on ebay, amazon, even Facebook. An entire livelihood at stake to some megacorp where you don't even have worker rights? Funk that. Amazon banned people in the past who returned too much, and those people lost access to their past kindle purchases and remaining months on prime -- which isn't any type of justice.

I guess the long and short of it is the current legal environment is pretty ineffective against abusive companies (just look at Comcast). You'd be a fool to trust them.

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please explain which US law is being broken here. Oh, you can't because there isn't one. It may (or may not) be a violation of the laws of certain states, but not on the part of anybody except the ultimate purchaser.

Throwing out opinions as fact is the truly childish behavior here.

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

He SPECIFICALLY said the spirit of the law and you're the one conflating that, not him. Your opinion would be more factually informed if you learned to read.

Re: Is this Soviet Russia?

[Bartles]

Elaborate.

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

One is legal and one isnt. Pay ur damn sales tax.

WA has no state income tax (I like that), its important people dont dodge the sales tax here. Goto Oregon and its the other way around, you automatically lose something like 10% of your income before you see it, at least here you only see the taxation if you spend it.

Re: Is this Soviet Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. Being penalized for participating in a shady online practice seems to be the result of a cause and effect. Only an insipid self entitled millennial would be so sophomoric as to suggest that the actions of a publicly traded company resemble those of a country with respect to action, consequences, and personal freedom. Google (alphabet) responded in an appropriate manner in order to prevent a shady online business model from going viral. The inevitable consequence of not responding in such a manner would be the imposition of more regulation on online retailers.

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has - like many, many other big multinationals - avoided billions in taxes thanks to dodgy tax manoeuvres that are "technically" legal: they may violate the spirit of the law but not, of course, the letter of the law (they have enough lawyers to ensure that).

So what legitimacy do they have to play tax police? Either we accept that these practises are legal and let leave them alone, or we apply the same standards to everyone.

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's your new word(s) for today: "Use Tax". Your entire post is based on the error that you believe US law is the only law that can be broken.

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[0100010001010011]

Since when is it illegal for google, a private company, to permanently ban users for *anything*?

If I woke up tomorrow and found myself locked out because Google banned people that had used slashdot I'd roll my eyes and move on to the next service.

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[JaredOfEuropa]

The spirit of the law is being broken all the time by the US government themselves, when they argue that forcing someone to unlock a phone with a fingerprint is not self-incrimination, or that burning a flag technically isn't "speech", or that civil forfeiture is even a thing.

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[Half-pint HAL]

Without knowing the name of the reseller, it's hard to see whether or not a specific law is being broken. Setting aside the "spirit of the law" that the GP referred to, there's a potential issue of misrepresentation. Was the reseller listing them as "new" or as "second hand -- as new"*? The initial purchase conferred consumer protections on the buyer only, and the law on the transferability of consumer rights is not straightforward. The reseller has no commercial contract with Google in respect of these phones, so who's responsible if one breaks? What if they do a Samsung and start catching fire -- are the new owners entitled to a replacement?

There's more to the market than loopholes and fiddling with prices, and most people simply aren't aware of how treacherous this area of law can be.

(* Actually, I don't understand how "as new" can be legal as a description -- much of the benefit of buying new is the warrantee period and related support.)

Re: Is this Soviet Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

This banning action should be seen as a healthy warning. I am alredy in the process of switching from my "free" gmail account to a "paid" service that costs several dollars a month. Google started getting snippy about me using them as just a mail server and not using their web client, so it just seemed like the prudent thing to do. "Free" email from Google just isn't worth the liability of tying your whole identity to them.

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[CrimsonAvenger]

(* Actually, I don't understand how "as new" can be legal as a description -- much of the benefit of buying new is the warrantee period and related support.)

Some people don't care much about warranties, but would really like to be a "used" item that's going to work reasonably well. "as new" implies it'll work, but that the warranty doesn't apply.

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[alexo]

Since when was it OK to break the spirit of the law? Is this some post-Trump perspective where tax avoidance is a virtue?

Since lawyers and tax accountants were invented.

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

You act as if a ToS is above the law and can't have illegal terms. That would be wrong.

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[alexo]

One is legal and one isnt. Pay ur damn sales tax.

Google is not a part of the legal system.

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[Carewolf]

Since when was it OK to break the spirit of the law? Is this some post-Trump perspective where tax avoidance is a virtue?

I can see the problem with Google acting as a vigilante, but taking the side of those that attempt to circumvent US law seems almost anarchistic. Surely "because it's not *technically* illegal" is a childish defense.

What US law? No laws were broken. Everything was legal, it is just that Google didn't like it and considered it a breach of their terms of service.

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. New Hampshire has no sales tax, and "scalping" is totally legal there. Some people evidently think it's wrong not to tax people or screw them out of the value of their property.

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when was it OK to break the spirit of the law?

Since everyone downloaded MP3 from the Internet? How about since Google started playing company shell games to avoid taxes?

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[gravewax]

if it isn't technically illegal then Google have no right to be acting as judge and executioner, especially since google engage in this exact type of practise themselves to avoid taxes all around the world precisely because it is not *technically* illegal.

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[udachny]

AFAIC tax avoidance and tax evasion are virtues. Governments should get nothing, they should be drowned in a bucket, the mob should go fuck itself, welfare shouldn't exist, no form of any kind of bailout should exist. There shouldn't be any government oppressing anybody anywhere. Stop paying taxes, do not pay taxes, avoid and evade taxes, it is your civic responsibility and absolutely a virtue.

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't avoidance, its straight up illegal evasion. States with sales taxes require them on out of state purchases, in the form of a "use tax".

Re:Is this Soviet Russia?

[Carewolf]

Exactly. New Hampshire has no sales tax, and "scalping" is totally legal there. Some people evidently think it's wrong not to tax people or screw them out of the value of their property.

That is really stupid. Sales tax is one of most effective and least regressive taxes. Also it wouldn't apply to items bought for resale anyway, it only applies on the final sale.

Well, duh. Google is in bed with the state.

[ErikTheRed]

Eric Schmidt had is nose firmly planted in Obama's and Clinton's behinds, and with the unexpected ascendency of Trump it's no surprise that he's being a good little marching boy for the new Back to Law and Order administration ("We know how to make all of our broken and stupid rules work: enforce them harder!").

Re:Well, duh. Google is in bed with the state.

[whoever57]

Back to Law and Order administration ("We know how to make all of our broken and stupid rules work: enforce them harder!").

Hah! I'll believe that when the IRS is able to hire more people to conduct audits.

slashdot is home for six year olds

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, it is ok ever since Google and its corporate brethren dodged paying taxes

Two wrongs make a right... for infant children.

Re:slashdot is home for six year olds

[Uberbah]

Six year olds, and pedantic schoolmarms who are in desperate need of some colon blow. Your wankery is a non-response to Google's hypocrisy.

"Doctrine of clean hands"

[markdavis]

Moral: Don't go whining about how you were wronged while you were doing something wrong yourself!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Good for Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Good for Google!

S/the/they're/

[Anonymous Coward]

and got all of *the* Google accounts suspended.

Worse than the IRS

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, now google is the prosecuter, judge and executioner. WTF, I'm really scared, how they can turn off your digital life at the flip of a finger. This is insane, draconian. I don't agree with what the people did, but for Google to use their power to kill their daily digital life is insane. With this behavior, I say google services need to be taken over by the government. Or laws should be enacted to make companies such a Google accountable for this. I say these 200 users should go for a class action against Google. I dont care what their terms of services are, it has become such a integral part of our daily lives that the terms are.not reasonable. Time to rethink using them. Really scary...their power!

Re:Worse than the IRS

[0100010001010011]

Um. Perhaps you don't remember a time before Google Existing but if your 'digital life' is in the control of Google you were never in the control you thought you were.

I deleted my facebook, something people would say was their digital life. Turns out I can type other addresses into the browser. If that fails I can type in IP addresses.

A private corporation is just that.

Re:Worse than the IRS

[Alumoi]

how they can turn off your digital life at the flip of a finger.

WTF? One Google account is now your digital life?

Re:Worse than the IRS

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I don't get these people. I don't use gmail for anything important, I do use google voice but I can live without it, the biggest pain would be losing access to all of my paid Android apps.Of course they were all free anyways. Thank you Google Rewards. ;)

Re:Worse than the IRS

[Anonymous Coward]

For an independent Android developer who self-publishes through Google Play, the suspension (even temporary) of your Google Account would cause real, immediate harm that can't necessarily be undone by Google merely reinstating your account and saying, "oops, sorry" a few days later, because in the meantime your app's access to Google's services (maps API, cloud messaging, and everything else), as well as its publication in Google Play & use of Google Ad Services, are ALL TIED TO IT and would be instantly suspended as well. From the perspective of your users, your app would instantly break, and users who purchased it would be unable to re-download it as long as the account was suspended.

Wait, it gets worse. If people initiated chargebacks due to your app's sudden unavailability, you could find yourself unable to accept credit card payments in the future due to excessive chargebacks EVEN IF those chargebacks happened due to a cascading chain of catastrophe triggered by Google either screwing up or jumping the gun.

Not to mention, if you used Google to authenticate yourself to websites like StackOverflow, you'd be locked out of your accounts (and history, and reputation) THERE, too.

Let this sink in for a moment... Google can, and does, casually incinerate your digital identity at the drop of a hat. Without even bothering to have a human sanity-check the decision before they pull the trigger.

Re:Worse than the IRS

[Anonymous Coward]

And in the cashless society pulling your financial id would freeze all your financial accounts. Google isn't the largest problem...

Re:Worse than the IRS

[anegg]

If you based your "digital life" on freeloading off of Google's services, what else would you expect other than to be under the (possibly draconian) thumb of Google?? If you want Google services to be taken over by the government, you are saying that you want taxpayers to pay for your digital life while you freeload, instead of just paying for it yourself. As a taxpayer, I say no way. If you don't like Google's deal, pay for your own services. Every service that Google offers is available from a commercial provider. I know, because I buy all of those services, or provide them for myself, rather than get them from Google (with the exception of search) precisely because I don't want to be under Google's thumb. Sheesh! Wake up and take responsibility for yourself.

Re: Worse than the IRS

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you an idiot? Shutting down access to my email is like kiiling all threads of electron communication, such as the recruiter that was waiting for my response for that killer job interview, or the password recovery email ready I needed to reset for urgent online access to my financial account, or that super important document on google drive. What you don't get is that these services are offered for some form of currency, other than money; whether it be loyalty orore yes on ads, so fuck you with your stupid 'freeloading' claim. These services grew so much as part of the industry, they are becoming as important as roads. And google is turning into a road troll.

Re: Worse than the IRS

[anegg]

Roads are a service that there can, in general, only be one of in any particular location. E-mail is a service which is open to market forces, where many service providers can compete on the basis of the cost and quality of their offerings. There doesn't seem to be any need to have an "e-mail service" or a "document storage service" that is run by the government; the commercial market is vibrant and healthy with many alternatives. So I don't think your "road troll" comparison is at all apt. If you are unwise or unaware enough to select a "free except for ads" service, or whatever other currency you think you are trading in to use Google, when their stated terms of service explicitly say that can turn off your account at any time, for a service that you yourself deem to be critical, then I certainly don't feel the need for my tax money to be spent to extricate you from a situation into which you have placed yourself.

I understand quite well what the Google terms of service are, including how one is "paying" for those services and what level of service is guaranteed for that payment, and I opted for a different deal. I opted to pay cash for services from a commercial provider where my terms of service are a little more in my favor. I was also careful to choose a provider with a solid reputation and history of providing available services. You had the same set of choices, and you apparently now feel that you may have chosen poorly, and that you should be bailed out by action of the government against the vendor who is providing exactly the quality of service that they promised to you for the price that you were willing to pay. Good luck to you, sir or madam.

Re: Worse than the IRS

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that being locked out of your Gmail account is *almost* the least of your problems. There's an entire ecosystem of Google services (including apps YOU PAID FOR through Google Play, and other websites that delegate their authentication to Google SSO) that will leave you in a world of hurt if Google decides to casually pull the plug on you without warning or recourse.

And... as others have noted... if they nuke your account, Google generally won't even give you any specific reason WHY they did it, let alone allow you to remedy whatever it is that they didn't like. It's like living in a dystopian society where some planet eliminates crime by punishing even the most trivial of infractions with death... then goes a step further, and starts using an algorithm to identify people likely to break a law in the future & targets them for preemptive execution.

Crooks fiddle their tax

[Martin S.]

... and get caught.

What is the problem exactly?

Re:Crooks fiddle their tax

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

The real irony is that another set of crooks who fiddle their taxes (Google) suspended their accounts on moral grounds.

Re:Crooks fiddle their tax

[Lunix Nutcase]

That's funny since Google uses loopholes to skirt around paying billions in taxes. But these guys exploiting a loophole to skirt around paying magnitudes less in taxes are clearly the dirty crooks.

Live by the letter of the law...

[karlandtanya]

Die by the letter of the law.

"Oooh, I'm so clever--I've found a trick to get something for no (or damned near little) effort, while actually contributing NOTHING of value."
Fine. You better make *damned* sure you read *all* the rules.

These sorts of shenanigans are reserved for billionaires and large corporations.
Folks who can afford high priced lawyers and high priced congresscritters.
Not you.

Lots of states have anti-scalping laws

[rsilvergun]

they're meant for tickets but might apply to any good or service being scalped. So depending on your jurisdiction yeah, laws might be broken.

And in any case they're violating Google's terms of service. Google can't control what you do with the phone after they sell it to you (right of first sale) but they can choose not to sell it to you.

And there are lots of good reasons to prevent scalping. For tickets the reasons are obvious. Bands sell tickets at a loss and make it up with merch at the show. I've seen photos of sold out Red Hot Chili Pepper's concerts where the auditorium was 1/10th full because the scalpers bought all the tickets and only sold them to the few rich folks who could afford it. Great for the venue (100% sell out) horrible for the band.

I see the same thing with a product like the NES classic. Nintendo isn't just selling those to make money, they're selling them to keep themselves in the consumer's mindshare while they work on their next console. So they sell them at a lower price to ensure 100% sell out. Scalpers blow that to hell since they're sitting on all the product.

I also saw this with the Gundam Seed toyline. Really nice toyline. $10 figures with amazing detail and playability. Got scalped like crazy and were going for $50 online. The Scalper could make a profit by selling 2 to OCD collectors and sitting on 7 of them. So they did. The show needed the merch to stay in mindshare. Cool toys are one of the things that made Wing and G Gundam so big. Fans and kids couldn't get the toys, show died on the vine.

When artists of all stripes can't get their product in consumers hands for a price that all but a handful can afford they lose out. That's the real cost of scalpers. For a real business making real product it's not just about the sales today, it's about the sales tomorrow, next month, next year. The scalpers cut that off like a parasite.

Re: Lots of states have anti-scalping laws

[fuckface]

"Bands sell tickets at a loss and make it up with merch at the show."

Maybe if by "bands" you're referring only to Fugazi.

Re: Lots of states have anti-scalping laws

[Anonymous Coward]

This Gundam Seed company you speak of should have anticipated the great demand and produced more toys. They could have flooded the "scalpers" with many toys and the regular buyers would have also had plenty. Unless, perhaps, they were trying to set up an artificial-scarcity situation to generate hype. In which case it's a good thing to see their scheme backfiring when the "scalpers" stepped in.

Re:Lots of states have anti-scalping laws

[Anonymous Coward]

By that line of reasoning, -everyone- is a scalper, because they aim to sell something they bought for a higher price. There is something called the right of first sale. If someone wants to buy tickets, let them. If scalpers are buying tickets at $10/seat and selling for $100, the venue should sell the tickets at $100.

Same thing with flipping houses or taking a gemstone in the rough and making it into a polished wedding ring. Capitalism at its finest.

Re: Lots of states have anti-scalping laws

[Sarten-X]

Having worked in theater for a while, I can assure you that ticket sales (in a traditional venue, at least) have practically nothing to do with the house costs... but it's complicated.

First, the house charges rent. That typically covers the wear & tear, upkeep, and basic services for the show during its run. There may be basic crew costs included, or they may be negotiated separately, but the bottom line is a big up-front cost for the producers to put a show on stage at all.

As tickets go on sale, they are priced according to what the market will bear, through a joint agreement between the producers and the house. Front-row seats for a Broadway show pull in above-average prices, but the nosebleed section behind a pillar next to the air conditioner barely sells for enough to cover the processing cost. However, selling cheap seats allows the producers to boast about the number of tickets sold, and helps the house meet goals for community access (which is very important for nonprofit houses). A cut of the ticket sales goes to the house (justified as covering the box office processing costs), but the majority of it goes to the producers... After all, the producers are also paying a lot of the expense to promote the show, often through separate advertising deals with the house company.

To address the original point: Ticket sales are based on the market, not the expenses. A nonprofit house working toward promoting the arts might indeed sell tickets at a huge loss to please their patron donors. A promoter trying to increase a band's popularity might cut prices, expecting to lose money on the whole show in an effort to boost popularity for higher return later. On the other hand, a top-bill show with great reviews in other venues could be priced at a huge profit, and still expect to sell.

Finally, once the show opens, the producers have the captive audience in the seats, excited about the show, and that's when the real money-making starts. Concessions are usually handled mostly by the house, but merchandise is usually purely profit for the producers. That's why the adage about merchandise rings true. It does allow promoters to cut ticket prices and still make a profit on the show, or at least reduce the expense they paid for promoting the brand. For small bands who have to pay their own expenses, this is the best chance they get at turning a profit on the show.

Re:Lots of states have anti-scalping laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of states do have anti-scalping laws, but New Hampshire isn't one of them. Ticket reselling is a totally above-board business there.

Re:Lots of states have anti-scalping laws

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe those are bad business models. why should i support a bad model.

Re:Lots of states have anti-scalping laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Well Nintendo is notorious for restricting the manufacture of physical products, Amiibos are a perfect example. Oh you don't think it'll sell that well, if my eye's rolled any harder the force from my eyeballs rotating in my skull would cause my head to fly off. But I do agree scalping is really fucking annoying, my own anecdotal evidence being trying to get into PAX East. It sells so fast you literally have seconds to reserve the 3 day passes online or you have to pay double through scalping.

Re: Lots of states have anti-scalping laws

[zentigger]

Ticket sales are way more complicated than that for most musical acts.

It's spelled out pretty well here:

http://www.today.com/news/why-...

Account access is being restored

[zm]

https://www.theguardian.com/te...

Ironic since Google ships their earnings elsewhere

[JoeyRox]

Google is penalizing these people who had their phones shipped to another state to avoid taxes yet Google ships their earnings to other countries to do the same thing.

Wait, why is google involved in this?

[WarlockD]

I am confused. Yes it is scalping but you kill the dealer, not the customers. At this point its giving me second thoughts about keeping backups on their cloud if they decide a phone I bought off eBay is illegal by just the mac address.

Atleast use a shell company to go after customers, like Microsoft does when checking on business software licences

Re:Wait, why is google involved in this?

[RockDoctor]

At this point its giving me second thoughts about keeping backups on their cloud

Google's cloud in particular, or any company's cloud?

I keep my backups as patterns of rust on portable hard drives in a ziplock bag in a friend's cellar. The friend does the same. Our backups work, and do not depend on any internet service working tomorrow.

Then the IRS should lock Google out of the US...

[Uberbah]

They'll flush out the shill accounts and give everyone else a smack on the wrist for doing something that's pretty self evidently wrong (scalping).

...until the company stops their infinity larger tax avoidance schemes.

Lesson of this story - don't buy from Google

[sinij]

If you are using any of digital services by Google and don't want to lose them, then don't buy from Google, because if they don't like how/why you do something they will ban you from their platform.

In other news, it is time to anti-trust them.

Re:Lesson of this story - don't buy from Google

[thegarbz]

Yes anti-trust them.

Your honour, while in the process of scalping phones and avoiding taxes, Google did something their terms of services allowed them to do to take an effort to stop me from artificially screwing with their pricing structure. It's just not fair!

Re:Lesson of this story - don't buy from Google

[Anonymous Coward]

The lesson is, don't rely on Google in any way. Google is not a good landlord for your mail, your pictures, your music, your apps, your health data.

Re:Ironic since Google ships their earnings elsewh

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically Google isn't a US company because their are wholly owned by a foreign legal entity. US SHOULD NOT give companies like this any sweetheart trade deals or give them heads up about foreign competition from US intelligence intercepts. They are not a US company.

Already reversed

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already been reversed: Google reverses decision to ban Pixel phone resellers

This is a non-story. (1) users found to be skirting tax laws (2) suspend accounts to investigate (3) review appeals (4) act based on what you found
If Google did nothing they'd be in trouble with regulators.

Back-ups

[jgullstr]

The chance of a "digital death penalty" is greatly mitigated by not having a "digital deathwish".

Re:Ironic since Google ships their earnings elsewh

[Anonymous Coward]

For the Nth time, Google does not shift US profits overseas. It uses loopholes in EU tax laws and does not repatriate non-US income (to avoid additional taxes). Under no change of those laws would it's US tax base increase, but it will likely pay more in the EU when they get around to fixing their laws.

A multi-national would be dumb to move non-US profit back the US without a very good reason, as the money can be better spent elsewhere (datacenters in growth countries, etc).

Re:Ironic since Google ships their earnings elsewh

[JoeyRox]

Who said anything about USA profits? Google ships their profits earned elsewhere to other countries, again to avoid taxation. Not saying Google is alone in that corporate behavior but it's absurd for Google to penalize small fry doing the same thing themselves.

At least they have an appeal process.

[Anonymous Coward]

So many sites will nuke people forever, for no discernible reason. (And no, you can't just go back.)

When these sites have some form of power in your field, it's definitely harmful.

Brick the phones

[Anonymous Coward]

If they violated the terms, brick the phones and have the customers duke it out with the reseller.

Reserving judgement

[Anonymous Coward]

While this looks shady as hell of Google, I personally will be waiting for swillden to drop in and tell us why his Dear Leaders are in fact benevolent and there's nothing wrong with what's gone on here.

Re:Ironic since Google ships their earnings elsewh

[alexo]

Google is penalizing these people who had their phones shipped to another state to avoid taxes yet Google ships their earnings to other countries to do the same thing.

Might (or in this case, big lobbying budget) makes right.

Continuing the downhill slide...

[Anonymous Coward]

This has got to be one of the worst summaries ever to be selected.

Re:Ironic since Google ships their earnings elsewh

[swillden]

It uses loopholes in EU tax laws and does not repatriate non-US income (to avoid additional taxes). Under no change of those laws would it's US tax base increase

I'm not sure if you're including US law in "those laws", but if the US had sufficiently low corporate income tax rates companies whose primary operations are in the US would repatriate a large portion of that money to where they can more easily invest it in growth, which would increase US tax revenues in two ways. First, the US would collect some tax on the repatriated money and second, when the money is spent in the US much of it would get taxed again. Payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc.

Re:Ironic since Google ships their earnings elsewh

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not at all what happened, read the article. They had the phones shipped DIRECTLY to a reseller. They were making a profit off commercial reselling which is against the Google TOS, so Google decided to refuse them further service.

Re:Ironic since Google ships their earnings elsewh

[Anonymous Coward]

It uses EU tax laws

FTFY drizzlycunt.

Following the tax code is just that - FOLLOWING THE FUCKING TAX CODE.

Don't like it? Then stop using the mortgage interest loophole, you sorry, road-n-fire department hating fucks.

This is not a story, but a warning

[SuperKendall]

This is a GREAT wake-up call for all those people that think that ANY cloud service is a great place to be the only repository for all your photos and other things...

That's not just Google, but any other cloud document or photo service. Always keep full backups of photos, and figure out how to export emails from whatever service you use for email. If you can't export emails, get a new email provider.

Re:This is not a story, but a warning

[RockDoctor]

This is a GREAT wake-up call for all those people that think that ANY cloud service is a great place to be the only repository for all your photos and other things...

My original title was something like "the iron fist pokes out of the velvet glove".

Except for a few major acts

[rsilvergun]

Like the Stones, Barbra Streisand and Madona the Record company pockets all the ticket sales. That's what I mean when I say they "Sell at a loss". They're there, they're working, they're not getting paid. They get to sell merch.

Re:Except for a few major acts

[doccus]

The record company most certainly does NOT pocket the sales. They have absolutely no legal right to do so. It's the management that collects the income.. and according to any agreement they have made previously with the artists they split the proceeds, usually with an unusually generous cut for management. Unlkess you're Kiss, merchandise makes shit for proceeds. In fact, toiuring is , or at least has been in the past, according to the old system, is the only income the band makes until uit pays off the loan from the Record company. Things are somewhat different now, with artists having so muchh more input and control over their management and the label usually being independant. People signed via the classic major label method, such as, say, Hip Hop artists , still go through the old system though...

Pot Meet Kettle

[EEPROMS]

This is a great example of the Pot (Google) calling the Kettle black. Here we have Google funneling billions in on line transactions via tax havens so as to avoid paying taxes. But if Mr Jill/Joe average tries to do the same "OH know, lets go to war with our "paying" customers for doing the same". I'm not surprised google did a U-turn on this decision because pain in the rear customers like me will point out that Google does exactly the same every day (and are now being forced by some countries to pay back taxes).

Individuals don't scape tickets

[rsilvergun]

not much anyway. Actual scalpers don't provide the ticket to someone who otherwise wouldn't have it. They buy up all the tickets and sell them back to people that would have bought them on the show night. The venue owners turn a blind eye because they're shifting the risk to the scalper. the scalpers know their business so they might lose a little here and there but they make it up from people that desperately want to see see the show.

It also screws the bands. They need to sell out their show and make money on merch because they don't get the ticket sales, the record labels do. So when a show sells out and only a thousand people show up they bands are screwed. People stop caring about the band because they can't see their shows. It sucks all around.

My kid wanted to see Hanna Montana when she was young, but the $40 tickets were selling for over $1000.

Re:Individuals don't scape tickets

[93 Escort Wagon]

My kid wanted to see Hanna Montana when she was young, but the $40 tickets were selling for over $1000.

I am so thankful my daughter is a few years older than yours - Hannah Montana mania was almost scary. Although I guess she did like the Spice Girls, which I'm not sure is any better (although they were more pleasant to look at, from my perspective). She never hit us up for concert tickets though - she just wanted all the movies and videos.

Remember the Nymwars

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that even having or using the "wrong" name could get you banned. Google's stance hardened for G+ and it took about 4 years for them to kinda relax it in 2014. Despite that, some other article in 2016 showed google is still decoupling G+ names from the app store (or maybe Youtube comments or some such.)

Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's express view on tax is to dodge it via loopholes. Fuck them for thinking others can't do the same.

Re:Then the IRS should lock Google out of the US..

[Anonymous Coward]

Scalping is totally legal in many states, including New Hampshire. An item for sale is an item for sale. Why should phones or tickets be treated differently from any other merchandise?

Re:Ironic since Google ships their earnings elsewh

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps you might want to research that a little better. Google have been shown to move US income to offshore places like Bermuda to avoid US taxes. basically they have different tax scams for different countries.

Re:Ironic since Google ships their earnings elsewh

[gravewax]

For the Nth time, Google does not shift US profits overseas.

oh really? http://www.huffingtonpost.com....

Re: Ironic since Google ships their earnings elsew

[Anonymous Coward]

If the tax rate was one percent and avoiding was one half of one percent, they'd have the same motivation to dodge it as they do now. Greed.

F U and the pending tax holiday (for billionaires, not w2 schmucks).

Re:Then the IRS should lock Google out of the US..

[Uberbah]

They shouldn't. The point is that Google is being hypocritical, and all the "two wrongs don't make a right" wankers here are supporting hypocrisy.

Re:Ironic since Google ships their earnings elsewh

[Big Hairy Ian]

Actually technically Google haven't done anything wrong it's the Irish Government who have not billed Google for the Taxes they owe. The EU is taking the Irish Government to task over this (And other companies where it's done the same thing) as it is acting illegally.

Re:Ironic since Google ships their earnings elsewh

[Anonymous Coward]

Point to the clause in the tax code that Google is violating.