> Additionally, one user told The Register they had spending caps in place that should have stopped any bill over $250. Yet according to Google those caps can be automatically upgraded to $100,000 – without user input – if the user has spent a total of $1,000 throughout the life of the account, and the account is more than a month old.
Anyone care to bet on whether Google would oppose consumer protection legislation on this issue?
I'd also bet that Google has already closed off the loophole of having a shell company (with near-zero assets) own the API account, and other such safety measures - is anyone here familiar?
Consumer protection is not relevant here. These are B2B relationships, so those are under an different framework of rule. Things that are forbidden to be used against an Customer can be used against an company.
> Additionally, one user told The Register they had spending caps in place that should have stopped any bill over $250. Yet according to Google those caps can be automatically upgraded to $100,000 – without user input – if the user has spent a total of $1,000 throughout the life of the account, and the account is more than a month old.
Anyone care to bet on whether Google would oppose consumer protection legislation on this issue?
I'd also bet that Google has already closed off the loophole of having a shell company (with near-zero assets) own the API account, and other such safety measures - is anyone here familiar?
Consumer protection is not relevant here. These are B2B relationships, so those are under an different framework of rule. Things that are forbidden to be used against an Customer can be used against an company.
Literally true - but my point about Google opposing any imposed remedy for the problem still stand.