German court requires Google to stop ignoring customer emails

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2605999/legal/german-court-requires-google-to-stop-ignoring-customer-emails.html

by prohor • 12 years ago

57 71 12 years ago

jnbiche• 12 years ago

If Google does not change its conduct, it could be fined up to €250,000 about US$323,000), the court said.

Hmm, personalized e-mail support for an entire nation, or US$323,000. Wonder which one finance will recommend?

I mean, if you're going to fine private companies for non-misleading, non-fraudulent behavior, then do it right like the US: $250,000 per day of non-compliance.

Better yet, just let the market take care of it. If people really dislike not having e-mail support, they'll stop using Google. So far, it's pretty clear that people value Google services more than they do personalized customer support, since it's almost universally known that Google provides zero support for free accounts, and limited support for even paid accounts.

jacquesm13• 12 years ago

'per day', 'in total' or 'per instance'? The latter could hurt really bad and is very likely the case.

malka• 12 years ago

per instance. Not suree what they mean by instance. If it's 250K per unsanswered mail, it could become extremely expensive for Google.

rbehrends3• 12 years ago

Hmm, personalized e-mail support for an entire nation, or US$323,000. Wonder which one finance will recommend?

This is from §890 (1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure [1]. It's €250,000 per violation of an injunction, and if that doesn't suffice to enforce the injunction, the court can also order coercive detention (i.e., putting you in jail). Essentially, it's the German equivalent of dealing with contempt of court in case of an injunction; it's not strictly a fine, it's a coercive measure, one that can be escalated.

[1] http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_zpo/englisch_zpo....

currysausage4• 12 years ago

If people really dislike not having e-mail support, they'll stop using Google.

When they are locked out of their account and first realize that support is non-existent? Happens all the time, happened to me once (no, I didn't forget my password).

since it's almost universally known that Google provides zero support for free accounts

Universally known among techies.

This doesn't mean that every incoming email should now be checked and processed individually by a Google employee, the court said. [...] It was left up to Google how to deal with future incoming email.

So Google doesn't need to respond to "How do I change the color of my inbox?" or "New design sucks!". But in case of serious trouble, a customer can expect the possibility of contacting a human.

mseebach2• 12 years ago

So, they don't have to "check and process" each message, it's just that not checking and processing each message and being honest about it is not OK? So how much is enough?

_delirium• 12 years ago

it's almost universally known that Google provides zero support

I don't think that fact is widely known among the general public, especially in countries where people assume (due to the law requiring it) that any company can be contacted and will reply to reasonable inquiries. It wouldn't be odd for someone in that case to assume that Google also has an address where they respond to inquiries, since every business does (or should).

You could make the same argument you made in the other direction: If Google really dislikes responding to email, just don't do business in Germany. It seems so far that most companies value doing business in Germany more than they value the right not to respond to email. It's almost universally known that companies doing business in Germany must provide a contact address where they respond to inquiries, so this isn't really a misleading or unexpected feature.

Tomte6• 12 years ago

They are not required to do real support.

But since they openly state that the email address is not monitored, they do not fulfil the requirements of the law.

It's perfectly fine never to respond to any email sent there.

They just have to accept that mails sent there can have legal effects.

The problem is basically that by telling everyone "I don't read it" they are suggesting to others that they cannot successfully (in a legal sense) contact Google using that email address. And that's wrong.

mcherm• 12 years ago

It's perfectly fine never to respond to any email sent there.

That's not what the decision says.

yebyen• 12 years ago

Wait, did you read this gem:

Google can appeal the ruling. The company did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

marcus_holmes2• 12 years ago

But google users aren't customers. Just because I use google to search for things doesn't make me a customer.

It doesn't say in the article, so does anyone know if the relevant German law requires free support? Can Google charge $500 per email to respond to user email, for example?

Genmutant• 12 years ago

It's not about free support, but the ability to contact them at all.

rbehrends3• 12 years ago

(1) Google also offers other services, such as GMail and Google Docs.

(2) This is a requirement for anybody who offers services that are generally provided for a fee, even if in this particular instance it is offered for free (e.g. because it is financed through advertising or a freemium model). See §5 of the German Telemedia Act [1].

[1] http://www.cgerli.org/fileadmin/user_upload/interne_Dokument...

readerrrr2• 12 years ago

Service providers must render the following information easily, directly and permanently accessible for telemedia which are offered commercially, generally in return for a FEE:

2. details which permit rapid electronic contact and direct communication with them, including the electronic mail address

( fee is emphasized by me )

I would argue that free services do not fall under this rule.

jordigh• 12 years ago

But google users aren't customers.

Y'know, I'm starting to question this oft-repeated adage. If websites are demanding that I watch their ads (although Google so far doesn't and lets me adblock in peace), then I'm a customer. I'm paying with my attention for the website's service. I'm doing something I wouldn't otherwise do in exchange for a service.

So I say people watching Google's ads are as much their customers as the people paying Google to put up those ads. If Google sufficiently angers either group, they lose business.

marcus_holmes2• 12 years ago

I tend to agree, but if governments make laws that insist that customers be supported, then there needs to be distinction made between customers who pay money and who could be reasonably expected to be supported, and users who get a service for free and cannot reasonably expect support.

spindritf6• 12 years ago

companies must provide a way to ensure fast electronic communications with them

Of course, that's just common sense. How can you run a company and not respond to people who contact you? Can anyone really object to this requirement? Obviously, a generated response does not fulfil it. You should be able to talk to a human.

Repeat that reasoning 1000 times and it becomes much clearer why Europe is being dwarfed economically by the US http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecac...

jacquesm13• 12 years ago

Repeat that reasoning 1000 times and it becomes much clearer why Europe is being dwarfed economically by the US

What a ridiculous way to compare the size of economies. Dwarfed means to me to be substantially larger. But in actual fact it's going neck-and-neck:

http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/p/largest...

Number of large companies founded is not a relevant metric if you want to compare the economies of continent sized entities.

spindritf6• 12 years ago

It's a reasonable way to compare successfulness. It's how Americans ended up providing us with search, phones, operating systems... pretty much all tech. Google dominates EU markets even more than it dominates at home.

All that seemingly sensible regulation is exactly how we keep reducing ourselves to playing catch-up and not even very well. http://online.wsj.com/articles/galileo-satellites-launched-i...

currysausage4• 12 years ago

Repeat that reasoning 1000 times and it becomes much clearer why Europe is being dwarfed economically by the US http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecac...

So when you are dealing with crappy Comcast support, you are still happy beacause at least you are doing business with a FT Global 500 company?

Maybe the chart can in part be explained by Europeans' preference of approachable mid-tier companies ("Mittelstand") over megacorps. Futhermore, the EU consists of 28 sovereign countries, most with their own language, so a higher economic fragmentation is inevitable.

Yes, Europe has fallen behind in the IT business, and bureaucracy is too widespread. But that chart doesn't have a lot to do with this.

spindritf6• 12 years ago

"Prefer" or don't really have a choice?

https://twitter.com/pkedrosky/status/395614967467999232

coldtea4• 12 years ago

Or, you know, Europe doesn't like huge behemoth mono/oligopolies as much.

There are better and more accurate metrics to compare economies.

E.g both (EU and US) have a GDP of about 16 trillion USD, despite EU also including lots of quite poor ex-socialist countries, and not being a same-language homegenous market.

Heck, EU is 26+ countries each with far more autonomy and diversity than state have between them, something which also keeps cross-EU big companies smaller.

Obvious misinformed snark is obvious.

mrweasel2• 12 years ago

What if Google had no offices in Germany? Would these rules still apply? Otherwise the rules would apply to every single company with a website, which seems extreme, especially if you don't do business in Germany.

It would make more sense if the rule just applied to paying customer and not random users.

Tomte6• 12 years ago

It applies to every web site that targets Germans.

patrickaljord4• 12 years ago

But Germany is part of the EU, an open and free market that allows to sell from other countries of the EU such as Ireland to say Spain. This is probably what's going to happen if the German gov keeps harassing Google as a cash cow.

jacquesm13• 12 years ago

In Germany, at the bottom of almost every website there is this thing called the 'impressum link', (example: http://www.spiegel.de/impressum/a-941280.html ), where the party operating the website lists their address of business and ways to contact them.

This is a requirement for doing business online in Germany.

patrickaljord4• 12 years ago

And did the people who passed this law thought of businesses who have millions of visits per second and what the consequences of replying to every single email would cost to the company and society? Seems like Germany have some really backward laws when it comes to the web, starting with all their spying laws and making Google Street View close to illegal.

Tomte6• 12 years ago

Nobody demands that even a single mail must be replied to.

Do the people who make such outraged, generalised and sweeping statements online think of the consequences, i.e. that they look foolish?

jacquesm13• 12 years ago

What is so backwards about companies that you do business with having a homebase somewhere and advertising that in plain sight? That would still be substantially less overhead than having a brick&mortar presence where ever they do business and those seem to be possible too.

It makes good sense to me that if someone wants to do business with you that you need to be able to talk to them somehow. Even if they refuse to talk back. They still have to have a way to be informed of stuff.

It's not as if millions of visitors per second automatically translates into millions of emails per second and if you keep your customers happy they typically do not email you all that frequently.

I actually like those German laws, even though I'm not a resident.

currysausage4• 12 years ago

starting with all their spying laws

What are you talking about?

and making Google Street View close to illegal.

No, Street View is perfectly legal in Germany. There was public outrage, which I couldn't understand, but it wasn't a legal issue at all.

simonswords82• 12 years ago

Same deal here in the UK. Regulation 7(1)(b) of the Companies (Trading Disclosure) Regulations 2008 states that you have to show your registered office, company registration number and where the company is registered.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/495/made

junto2• 12 years ago

While I'm not sure who's side I'm on here yet, it struck me that it is extremely hard to define a Google "customer".

I assume one has to pay monies to a company to make themselves a customer. I doubt even 2% of Google users actually pay.

freehunter• 12 years ago

If we are setting the pragmatic definition of customer, then yeah I would follow the old adage of "if you're not paying for it, you're not the customer". If we are setting a legal definition, I would rather see customer be defined as anyone who uses the product as it is advertised to them. That is, if Gmail is offered to me as being free, I am a customer even if I don't pay. You advertised it as free. If you're forced to do support, set tiers of support based on the tiers of your plan. Free users get basic support with a 5-7 day SLA. Paid users get far better. However, if it's advertised to me as being $50 and I am using it for free, I'm not a customer. I'm not using it as advertised.

Would this change the business model of a lot of start ups? You bet it would. But it would change it for the better in the customer's eyes. Maybe the "free tier" becomes the free trial, time-limited. Maybe paid users will no longer subsidize the paid users. Maybe companies will think through their business model a little more and not offer free service for just long enough to get embedded in someone's life then realize they have to shut down for lack of money.

I would love to see a shift from "user" to "customer". You don't have 200,000 users if they're not paying you. You have 200,000 customers and 0 profit.

trias• 12 years ago

The law in question is not intended regulate business-customer-relations, but is also for business-business of business-press-relation or any other form of contact.

If you operate a business in germany and have a website you have to have an "impressum". Even most personal sites put up an "impressum" even if they are not required too, just because everyone is scared of the "impressumspflicht".

junto2• 12 years ago

Interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

Mithaldu3• 12 years ago

I'm german, i read the ruling, here's details picked out of the document while reading through it. Feel free to ask if there's something that could be double-checked for.

- The suing party is a german group whose officially recognized reason for existence is to protect customer rights.

- If Google doesn't fix this, up to 250k€ per instance of violation (sadly not clarified what instance means), or jail up to 6 months (sic) or jail up to 6 months. (Unclear how that is supposed to be done.)

- Google has to pay 200€ + 5% interest, starting on 13.12.2013. (I don't know over which timeframe this interest accrues.)

- Google has to pay all process costs, as it's the losing party.

- Google offers services which it runs as a business, either by reserving the right to use customer data in a business manner (hangouts, docs, calendar) or by advertising (search, do note that TV broadcasting for example is a business with customers too).

- Google is required to make it possible to reach individual personal contact with a human employee at Google.

- The court recognizes and has discussed with Google that the problems of scale here are very real, but still insists on the fact that the current solution is not acceptable.

- The court even offers suggestions, such as providing multiple email adresses in the impressum to aid in channeling.

- Crucial to the court is that pointing at an online form is not enough, especially since the pointing is done at a maze of help pages which may, or may not, lead to an online form.

- The court recognizes that the law does not specify how the company has to communicate once person-to-person communication is established.

- The court recognizes that "not answering" is also a valid reaction, if and when a human employee has read/heard the request; BUT ONLY IF that kind of answer is not the rule.

- The court recognizes that efficient communication is not done by answering quickly, but by answering in a reasonable time frame and with detail according to the reasonable expectations of a user. (Thus implying that users may have unreasonable expectations which need not be fulfilled.)

- The court also recognizes that not all emails need to be read. The problem is that none are read. Google may filter and channel emails as it likes, as long as the system's goal is explicitly to enable communication via email; not as it currently is, to deny communication.

transpy2• 12 years ago

I don't understand why a technological country like Germany poses so many obstacles to American IT companies. It could be that Germany is sincerely concerned about the limitations that need to be imposed against e.g. Google, so that it doesn't get too powerful, or maybe Germans are just jealous that they aren't really thriving in IT.

Mithaldu3• 12 years ago

What you interpret as attacks on companies, is seen by germans as defense of real and individual people.

We have a lot of institutions that would make americans shiver in fright, but give us germans a nice warm feeling because we know that there's someone actually looking out for us.

We have a nationally recognized group for the protection of customers. We have a group for the protection of children from bad influences in media, like hate speech or glorification of violence. We have a government office for the protection of the unemployed, which makes it possible for them to continue living a dignified life and helps them reintegrate into the working community. We have strong laws protecting employees from capricious acts by employers. We have a state program to protect the elderly when they cannot work to support themselves anymore, by enabling them to live a dignified life. We have state health insurance and laws in place to ensure that a german citizen would have to actively break the law to not be protected by affordable health insurance. Just to name a few.

All of this protects every one of us and means that we're free to help and aid one another without having to worry about giving too much or empowering a potential adversary. It also increases everyone's quality of life; for example education is at a comparably high level for everyone, and we don't have cities who need to think hard about homeless, because we don't have epidemics of homeless.

We don't care about having giant IT companies which could buy small countries. We're glad to have everyone have a good chance at a decent life.

transpy2• 12 years ago

Ok then, in that case it's sincere concern about the well-being of it's citizens. Some of the things you mention are laudable (unemployment insurance) while other are questionable, nanny-state measures (protect children from bad influences), and other don't seem to be working (hate speech is rampant in Germany). I don't think protecting citizens against bad e-mail service counts as a critical protection measure, it rather falls into the nanny-state measures category and comes across as technologically backwards.

German court requires Google to stop ignoring customer emails

Related Stories