Don't their EULAs say something like "you lose the license to the product if you sue us"? I remember that such a clause used to exist in the React's licence, and I vaguely remember seeing it on some EULA I accepted recently. (I don't have the money to sue a megacorp anyway.)

That sounds like something unenforceable if there ever was an unenforceable clause.

Perhaps, but would you really like your Google account closed an inaccessible for a year or more while the courts work it out. Can you even afford lawyers over that time period? Not sure you'd be able to find one who would take this on contingency.

And that's the shitty bit about our legal system: it's slow enough that the entity you're suing can keep hurting you for a long time until things get resolved, and it's incredibly expensive to get them resolved, especially if you're going against a company with deep pockets.

I do wonder, though, if, when you go to small claims court (where the advantage is tilted a bit toward the plaintiff), and in addition to asking for the value of the devices, you could also get the judge to issue an injunction against Google, prohibiting them from taking any retaliatory action, like closing your accounts. That might be out of scope for small claims court, though.

I'm still not sure you'd win any of this, though.

Pretty sure that's why injunctions exist, if there is grievous harm while things are litigated. Keeping your account alive vs. not sounds totally one-sided in terms of harm to each party.

I love the energy, but I'm not sure you're right. Do you have specific case law you'd cite?

Without limiting the answer to the United States:

Antitrust law is very complicated because there's multiple different legal concepts in play. The punitive action response above is probably much better informed than my off the cuff one, and probably applies to this case moreso.

However, one principal test example I had in mind is if they close someone's Google Ads account.

For most businesses, removing the ability to advertise on Google would seriously impact their viability to compete with their competitors.

That's a classic example of Google being in a "market dominant position" vis a vis antitrust law.

Now the likely hood of this happening is close to zero. Because Google does NOT want to establish ANY sort of legal precedent ANYWHERE related to Google being in a market dominant position.

That would impact its business hugely.

I just think you’re applying the word anti-trust incorrectly.

There are plenty of other non-Google ad networks, they just aren’t as good. Facebook obviously stands out as an example. Amazon another. Same for email clients.

A regulator may see Google’s share in any of those markets and use that as evidence of monopoly power, but google bans plenty of people from using their services every day. I don’t think that’s the mechanism through which anyone can regulate them on anti-trust grounds.

How would this lead to an antitrust claim?