>But false advertising is definitely a thing one can sue over

I'm sorry but no, a 2006 blog post or something (which itself had caveats fwiw) doesn't rise to the level of overriding clear ToS for an ongoing service. There was no bait-and-switch here in the slightest, people got what they (didn't) pay for, and could not reasonably rely on it being "forever" anyway. Perpetual contracts are a matter of actual long standing California law and long standing court coverage.

Google should in the next 6-18 months (July for the service, but apparently first year is free on signing up for paid?) figure out a better offramp. Congress should make purchase transfers within a service the law too, much more important surgical measure than some of the silliness they're going on about with platforms. But Google isn't going to face any "false advertising" or "bait and switch" fines for this and shouldn't.

It definitely should. It is externalizing an astronomical cost. I am not a lawyer, so I can't comment on the law. As a citizen in a democracy, I can comment on what the law ought to be, though.