This doesn't make any sense to me. How is Google supposed to be in a position to price the business risk of individual customers into a standard SLA that they offer to all their customers? That would require Google to charge different amounts of money per customer (commensurate with the business risk placed on Google's services for that customer), running actuarial numbers to ensure that Google would have the means to pay out when the SLA is violated. Doing so would place undue burden on customers, who would need to prove business risk before buying the service, and many customers are unaware of the real business risk of downtime (having not run the numbers) anyway.
With that said... Maybe it's a good product idea, to sell varying levels of SLA violation insurance alongside the service covered by the SLA. The default, free level of insurance covers the cost of the service itself, as it does today, but perhaps a customer could buy premium insurance from Google that the SLA will not be violated, increasing the payouts to offset business risk. After all, who better to put a price on the risk than Google themselves? So probably, Google can offer a better price on offsetting the risk, than a third party insurer which doesn't have access to Google's internal data.
The evil part of outages is that, no matter how much resource you dumped into developments toward a more reliable system, it still happens. This is true for every company including Google. So when one company is choosing between cloud providers, they compare these SLAs with themselves. Usually it's pretty hard for a random shop to reach good SLAs. So I don't see "business risk" here. Risks present all the time, CTO should try hard to minimize them but no way to remove them.
Selling insurance for SLAs seems to be an interesting idea, but this kind of insurance might be really similar to earthquake insurance, since violation of SLAs tend to be not common (otherwise why committing) but it might be a huge cascade failure once happens. Would you like to buy one? Earthquake insurance quirks all apply.
On the other side, Google has zero incentives to violate SLAs. A. You really cannot control how large the violation would be. B. Damage to branding >>>>>> money payout.
With that said... Maybe it's a good product idea, to sell varying levels of SLA violation insurance alongside the service covered by the SLA. The default, free level of insurance covers the cost of the service itself, as it does today, but perhaps a customer could buy premium insurance from Google that the SLA will not be violated, increasing the payouts to offset business risk. After all, who better to put a price on the risk than Google themselves? So probably, Google can offer a better price on offsetting the risk, than a third party insurer which doesn't have access to Google's internal data.