Google Play Termination: Bad Faith, UCL Violations & Potential Antitrust Issues

#android #google #help

Hello,

I’m seeking a lawyer for Google’s wrongful termination of my Play Developer account. Case involves bad faith, UCL violations, and antitrust concerns after 3 years of failed appeals.

Case Background

I was an independent Android developer for four years with a clean compliance record. My apps were also published on Amazon and Samsung stores, confirming my independent operation.

On May 30, 2022, Google terminated my account, stating only: “We have found strong indications that your account is sharing information with, or is related to, other developer accounts that have been terminated.” No specific explanation was provided.

Core Issue: A Misinterpreted Coincidence

The sole “association” was a person I met once socially, who saved my number in his contacts. There was no shared development, accounts, devices, projects, or financial links. Google’s automated system appears to have treated a phonebook entry as conclusive evidence.

Fundamental Procedural Unfairness

The termination and appeal process had major defects:

A. Vague and Misleading Notice
The termination notice was extremely vague. It gave no actionable information, making it impossible for me to understand the accusation or defend myself.

B. No Human Review & Template Replies
Despite providing timelines, screenshots, technical explanations, proof of independent work, and repeated invitations to review my emails or investigate properly, I received only automated template responses.
No one ever asked for clarification or documents.

C. Lack of Due Process
I repeatedly asked Google what kind of evidence they needed, and I explicitly requested an investigation.
I never received an answer on what was expected from me, and no proper analysis was performed.

D. Contradictory Handling
Google claimed a “careful 5-day review,” yet:
my case was reopened multiple times,
tickets stayed open for months with no action,
and no meaningful review was ever conducted.

E. Disproportionate Penalty
A permanent, worldwide ban from the dominant Android marketplace based on a mistaken “association” is grossly disproportionate.

Legal Theories Potentially Applicable

A. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith (CA Law): Arbitrary, automated enforcement destroyed my contractual benefits.

B. California UCL Violation: Opaque, unfair practices that harmed a small business. (Not subject to Google’s $500 liability cap).

C. Gross Negligence: No meaningful investigation; reckless reliance on flawed automation, and mishandled the review timeline.

D. Tortious Interference: Destroyed my business, future revenue, traffic to my online stores, my ability to monetize YouTube, and career portfolio.

E. Antitrust Concerns (Sherman Act §2): Exclusion from the essential Android marketplace via an erroneous, automated process.

Become a member
F. Misalignment with Modern Standards (EU DSA): While not an EU resident, the process lacked the transparency and human review now required as a global benchmark.
Article 17 (clear reasons),
Article 20 (meaningful human review).

Documented Damages

Destruction of my apps and income
Loss of exponential growth
Loss of multi-platform monetization
Loss of career portfolio
Severe emotional distress over 3 years
Long-term professional harm

Evidence & Capacity I have a full evidence package ready, including all correspondence and terms.

I have the ability to contribute financially and I am open to payment plans, partial contingency, or hybrid arrangements. I prefer to discuss fees privately with interested attorneys.

I respectfully request an assessment of my case’s viability.

Thank you for your consideration. This has profoundly impacted my career and well-being for over three years.

Sincerely,