> not to share what exactly triggered the ban in order to protect their systems from spam and abuse
That's kind of true but I think that a company the size of Google could afford to assign someone to look into providing more information in a scenario like, "you are using geo-location without asking permission". Since the need for permission is not a secret, telling the vendor this causes less friction and makes people hate you a bit less.
Sure, you might also have a "secret" system that does something like "if failed 5 times in a row, blacklist them" but that is just security by obscurity and doesn't seem to stop that many people. Also, in the case where the vendor is an easily verifiable company selling, presumably, something that is fairly easy to view/check, it doesn't seem to be asking for much to either get a human or to get some automated messages.
Apparently they employ 140K people! That is a lot of people to not provide any human support.
That's kind of true but I think that a company the size of Google could afford to assign someone to look into providing more information in a scenario like, "you are using geo-location without asking permission". Since the need for permission is not a secret, telling the vendor this causes less friction and makes people hate you a bit less.
Sure, you might also have a "secret" system that does something like "if failed 5 times in a row, blacklist them" but that is just security by obscurity and doesn't seem to stop that many people. Also, in the case where the vendor is an easily verifiable company selling, presumably, something that is fairly easy to view/check, it doesn't seem to be asking for much to either get a human or to get some automated messages.
Apparently they employ 140K people! That is a lot of people to not provide any human support.