When Google Cuts Off Access: Poland and the World

How to read this text

🔗

This article grew out of one question people ask when, overnight, they lose an inbox they have used since 2011: did I encounter one automated system’s mistake, or a way of doing business that can be documented through examples from Poland and around the world, one after another, with dates? The answer took two weeks and is set out below.

I used only publicly available material that anyone can verify without asking anyone for a favour: judgments and court orders, official announcements, company-register extracts, financial statements, reports by ombudsmen and regulators, and press accounts of people who lost access to their own accounts. When a fact comes from an official document, judgment, or register, I state it directly. When I know it from an article, blog, or law firm’s account, I say so in the sentence. Not every case described here concerns a blocked account; some involve competition, data, or advertising. They are included because they show how Google deals with courts and regulators, which matters to anyone trying to get an answer from this company and hearing only an automated system in return.

One more point about method. Several companies sharing an address or board members is a matter of public record. I draw no conclusions from that fact about anyone’s motives or the responsibility of any particular person. Readers are fully entitled to ask themselves why everything was arranged in precisely this way.

Six emails, one button

🔗

I am not a free user. I pay Google for business services, Workspace, and Cloud, and a Warsaw company within the group invoices me [18]. On September 1, 2026, between 15:49 and 15:53, I sent six messages from my private Gmail account to a total of 107 different addresses: 99 media addresses, four public authorities, two Anthropic addresses, and two private addresses. They were complaints about Anthropic, the maker of the Claude assistant and Claude Code tool, which had disabled services I paid for and answered my complaints with a bot. I sent them from Gmail because that was the address I used to log in to Claude, and Anthropic was copied on every message. That is why I did not use email on my own domain: otherwise their bots, which since April have passed my complaints back and forth dozens of times, would not know which account to associate the correspondence with. I did this deliberately because I know how these systems work.

Google’s automated system classified those six emails as spam and disabled the inbox the same day. The list of messages and recipients is attached to the pre-litigation demand and sits in the evidence file on this website [evidence]. Five appeals produced five automated refusals, repeated word for word, without a single concrete detail and without a human signature. On September 9, I filed a formal request through the form Google provides under the EU Digital Services Act; the submission received a number, but no answer arrived.

I later sent the same messages—the ones for which Google’s automated system called me a spammer—again from my business inbox on my own domain. No filter stopped them. Public authorities, companies, and individual newsrooms, including some outside Poland, are replying. People are replying, not a machine. The same text is correspondence to one email provider and a breach of rules to another, punishable by extinguishing a fifteen-year-old inbox. Can a complaint about one corporation cost you an account with another? If this is how they treat a paying business customer, how will they treat you?

The inbox can neither receive nor send, while recovery codes and password resets from other services still go to that dead address. I counted: one account tied me to roughly a hundred services and logins [98]. The account formally remains alive and may yet disappear in its entirety; the terms allow all services to be suspended on the basis of a “reasonable suspicion of harm” [96]. Do you have Gmail? Then find out who has a hand on the switch and whom you will write to once they press it. In Poland, no one is responsible for this.

The hotline sends you to the office. The office sends you to the hotline.

🔗

On September 4, the complaint went to the Office of Electronic Communications; on September 5, to the Personal Data Protection Office; and on September 7, to the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection. On September 5, I sent Google a pre-litigation demand with a deadline of September 9 at 12:00. The deadline passed in silence.

On September 9, I called Google’s helpline. The call is recorded. The consultant hears what the matter is and says: “Please write to the office in Warsaw.” A moment later he advises: “No, I would suggest that you contact them by ordinary post.” I say that, in that case, I will go there in person. He then says: “I understand, but I am unable to help you.” And finally: “You must send that question, send the question to the office, either in Warsaw or in Dublin.”

That same day I went to Rondo Daszyńskiego 2C in Warsaw, the registered office of Google Poland, and this is worth pausing over. That address did not appear in Google Search; it showed an address on Emilii Plater Street and a telephone number that did not exist. I tried calling it: there was no such number. So I decided to take the papers there in person. In the lobby, contract security guards in red Google-branded shirts blocked my way. Nobody came down from the company, although all I asked was for the secretariat to accept the documents—personal service, standard practice at public offices and every private company. They refused fifty-two pages comprising letters, complaints to three authorities, and a pre-litigation demand. “You may not enter the premises,” the security guard told me. As for the documents: “I do not accept these documents.” He did, however, hand me a card with the helpline number: the same helpline that had sent me to this address a few hours earlier (the recording and transcript are held by the author; an anonymised version is available on the website: [evidence]).

According to the company’s report, 2,348 people work in that building [5a]. Alphabet, the owner of the group, reports 190,820 employees in its annual report [5b]. Which one of them is responsible for a customer in Poland, when the helpline sends the customer to the building and the building sends the customer back to the helpline? On September 11, I sent three registered letters, each containing fifty-four pages: one to Dagmara Brzezińska, the new head of the Polish operation, whom I had also contacted twice through private LinkedIn messages; one to the management board of Google Poland; and one to Dublin. There has been no reply. The full chronology, with dates, times, and proof of posting, is available here: [google-track], [pisma-do-urzedow], [google-0909], [case-status].

The phone sent me to the address. The address sent me back to the phone. The loop closed in one day.

The bank could. Google couldn't.

🔗

For comparison, consider the other corporation in the same story. I submitted thirteen transactions used to pay Anthropic for services disabled without explanation to the bank as disputed charges. Anthropic contested the claims. The bank compared both sides’ evidence and found in my favour: decisions dated September 8, 9, 10, and 13, totalling PLN 735.86 and EUR 358.68 for twelve of the thirteen transactions; the dispute over the remainder continues [99]. The bank received the same documentation you can read on this website. I do not claim that this caused the outcome. I note the sequence, and it is worth thinking about.

The bank needed eighteen days to read both sides’ evidence and issue reasoned decisions. In two weeks, Google did not identify a single message for which it disabled the inbox. One of these companies boasts at every turn about artificial intelligence that can read and understand. It is not the bank.

Google has eclipsed Anthropic as my immediate problem, but I will return to Anthropic because not every matter involving that company has been resolved. The bank has now done almost everything Anthropic should have done, had it been willing to read its own correspondence. The bank did not tell me that the complaint was “being reviewed” and that it might reverse the refund if the other party disagreed. It compared the evidence and found in my favour.

Part one. Poland

Three companies at one address: which one are you supposed to write to?

🔗

Who exactly is “Google” in Poland? The sign above the entrance shouts one word. The court register gives a far more fragmented answer. Three companies are registered at Rondo Ignacego Daszyńskiego 2C: Google Poland sp. z o.o., Google Cloud Poland sp. z o.o., and Topaz Computing sp. z o.o. [1]. The shared address is simply a fact from the National Court Register and means nothing more by itself. Yet anyone who wants to write to “Google” must know the entities behind those companies and first guess which of the three should receive the letter. It took me two weeks to determine which Google company was my contracting party. A person with thirty years in IT, whose profession today is artificial intelligence, needed two weeks. How long would it take the average person? A rhetorical question.

Google Poland sp. z o.o. has share capital of PLN 800,000. Its shareholders are Google International LLC, with eighteen shares worth a total of PLN 720,000, and Google LLC, with two shares worth PLN 80,000; the ownership chain leads to Alphabet Inc. in the United States [2]. According to the financial statements filed with the National Court Register, Google Poland’s revenue for 2025 was PLN 2.01 billion; a year earlier, according to the trade publication Press, it exceeded PLN 1.53 billion, with net profit of about PLN 128 million and corporate income tax of nearly PLN 38 million [3]. Even so, neither Google Poland nor Google Cloud Poland appears near the very top of the Ministry of Finance’s list of the largest corporate income tax payers for 2024, headed by banks, Orlen, and KGHM [4]. Someone here is better at counting than at answering letters.

Google Cloud Poland sp. z o.o. has a capital of PLN 4 million. The only shareholder disclosed is the Irish-based Google Cloud EMEA Limited, with 3,999 of its 4,000 shares; one share has not been assigned to anyone in the registration data [5]. According to Bizraport, this entity's revenue for 2024 was about PLN 148 million with a net profit of 6.5 million [6].

Above the entire structure sits an Irish arrangement that must be described precisely, because precision determines where correspondence should be addressed. Raiden Unlimited Company, incorporated in Dublin in December 2006, is a subsidiary of Google Europe, Middle East and Africa Unlimited Company; the ultimate owner is Alphabet [16]. The same Google Europe, Middle East and Africa Unlimited Company is the sole shareholder of Google Ireland Limited, the entity identified as the other party to my email agreement [17].

Perfectly legal, which is the worst part

🔗

I found the answer to who my contracting party is in Google’s terms and corporate registers. It is worse than having no answer, because everything is perfectly in order. No Polish Google company is a party to my email agreement.

Google Commerce Limited in Dublin sells me the consumer subscription [18b]. Google Payment Ireland Limited, also in Dublin, handles card payments as a licensed electronic money institution [18c]. Google Cloud Poland in Warsaw issues the business invoices for Workspace and Cloud because Polish tax accounting requires it; Google’s own support documentation explicitly calls this company the local billing entity [18d][18]. Yet under the terms, the other party to the email agreement—the account disabled on September 1—is Google Ireland Limited, Gordon House, Dublin [18a]. There is no Polish Google payments company: the National Court Register contains the three entities described here, and none has “Payment” in its name [18c].

One account, four companies. Each does exactly what it was created to do, and each is fully within the law. Amazon, Microsoft and Apple are arranged similarly. Nobody here breaks the law. And that is exactly why there is no one to go to.

One empty chair remains in this puzzle. Google Poland, a company with PLN 2 billion in revenue and 2,348 employees, is not a party to anything that concerns me. It sells me nothing, bills me for nothing, invoices no consumer, and provides no service. It does not appear at all in the terms addressed to customers. So when security guards in red shirts refuse to accept a document and a registered letter goes unanswered, no obligation is breached, because Google Poland owes me none. From a Polish customer’s point of view, Google’s largest Polish operation is decoration. So why does it exist?

This is not a mess. A mess looks different. This is a design: a customer in Poland is meant to write to Ireland, and the Irish company replies at an Irish company’s pace—if it replies at all. The Office of Competition and Consumer Protection has known this for years, because its proceedings concerning Polish consumers were brought against Google Ireland, not Google Poland [49]. The address at Rondo Daszyńskiego is for photographs. The address for formal correspondence is in Dublin. The fact that customers must work this out themselves from four sets of terms and three registers says everything about what a company so fond of invoking “transparency” means by that word in practice.

An ordinary person without a taste for this kind of work gives up at this point. I understand. This is not my first dispute with a large company, and I do not intend to give up on this one.

A company with 105 million in capital, five employees and zero website

🔗

The third company at this address is the least recognisable and the easiest to overlook. Nobody has heard of it, so I checked the register. Topaz Computing sp. z o.o. was entered in the National Court Register on November 29, 2019. Share capital: PLN 105 million. Sole shareholder: Raiden Unlimited Company in Dublin; above it, Google Europe, Middle East and Africa; above that, Alphabet [7][16][17]. Principal activity: data processing and hosting [8].

The board consists of two people [9]. Valentine Anthony Bohan, Chief Financial Officer, is listed in the UK company register as the director of Google Payment Limited since February 2025 and Google UK Limited since November 2023, with the correspondence address of Gordon House on Barrow Street in Dublin, i.e. at the headquarters of Google Ireland [10]. Svilen Ivanov Karaivanov is Google's legal director in San Francisco [11]. Two gentlemen, one from Dublin, the other from San Francisco, run a company that the average Gmail user has never heard of, although it may be the one that keeps his data. There is no one in Poland on the board of this company.

Google itself says what the company does. In archived Google Cloud Platform subcontractor lists from 2021, Topaz Computing appears under “Data Center Operations,” with an address at Emilii Plater 53 in Warsaw [12]. The entry appears continuously across seven verified versions of the list, from April 2025 to June 2026. It remains on the current list, last modified on August 20, 2026 and read on September 13: same category, same address, and a REGON number matching the register [13]. The next row, at the same address, lists Google Poland as a subcontractor for service maintenance and technical support. Topaz does not appear on the separate Google Workspace subcontractor lists [15]. So: servers.

Now for the numbers from the financial statements the company itself files with the register [12a]. Topaz’s revenue in 2025: PLN 165.7 million, all from a single customer, Google Cloud EMEA in Ireland. A year earlier: PLN 135 million. Net profit for 2025: PLN 59 million. That year the company also bought PLN 104.6 million worth of equipment from companies in its own group. It signed a long-term energy contract whose future commitment was valued in the report at nearly PLN 588 million. Current corporate income tax reported for 2025: about PLN 380,000. All perfectly legal. That is roughly 0.6 percent of net profit and about 0.2 percent of revenue.

How many people generate those PLN 165 million? Five. Headcount over successive years: five, six, five, three, five. Total payroll in 2025: PLN 1.6 million. Every annual report repeats the same formula: no material events, no research and development, no plans for change. A company with PLN 105 million in capital buys hundreds of millions’ worth of equipment and uses it to serve its own corporate group. Who physically operates those servers? Across six annual reports, the operator is not named once.

And one more thing: this company does not exist on the internet. No website. No domain. No profile. It has never advertised a single job on any recruitment site. I began by checking roughly 120 queries across search engines, registers, company databases, forums, and archives. Outside registry entries and one energy contract, the result was zero.

This is not a Polish exception. Google has companies like this in at least eleven countries: Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Mexico. The same pattern, with the same ultimate owner—Alphabet—most often through Raiden in Dublin [17a]. Google’s entire European infrastructure sits behind companies that do not even have websites.

Why include this in an article about a blocked inbox? Because since September 1 I have been looking for a human being at Google. Google Poland will not let me in. Google Cloud Poland sends me invoices. Google Ireland is the other party to the agreement and says nothing. And the servers are purchased by a company with five employees whose board sits in Dublin and San Francisco. Google says nowhere where a Polish user’s data is stored or who is responsible for it. Perhaps Topaz should receive my complaint? I do not know. That is exactly the problem: nobody knows. It is time to find out.

Five employees. PLN 105 million in capital. No website. I found everything described here in public registers over two weeks. Anyone can. The rest is in the case file and in further registers I am still working through.

The address Google did not show its customers for two and a half years

🔗

Google Poland changed its registered address through a National Court Register entry dated February 5, 2024: from Emilii Plater 53 to Rondo Daszyńskiego 2C [2]. Yet Google’s own search engine still showed customers the old address and a disconnected telephone number on September 9, 2026. The address and number disappeared from the results on September 12, three days after my visit to the registered office. Map directories still list the old address today [2a].

For more than two and a half years, the company that indexes the entire internet directed customers to its own company’s outdated registered office. The address disappeared only after a customer arrived there carrying the case files.

People who left, and people who came

🔗

In 2026, Google’s leadership in Poland changed almost completely—at precisely the moment when someone who had occupied the chair for more than one quarter would have been most useful. Magdalena Kotlarczyk, who joined Google in 2011, led the Polish operation from July 2021 to March 2026. She left the post on March 31, 2026, by her own decision, personally announced, after roughly fifteen years with the company [19]. In August 2026, Forbes included her on its “50 after 50” list: “after reaching this point, she consciously ended her corporate career” [19b]. She therefore left voluntarily and with honours.

That is why one detail in the register deserves a sentence of its own. In the full National Court Register extract for Google Poland obtained on September 14, 2026—almost six months after her departure—Magdalena Kotlarczyk is still listed as the company’s sole commercial proxy [19a]. The proxy of a company that does not accept correspondence is therefore someone who has not worked there for half a year. The company, not she, has the duty to report changes. The register has not kept pace with reality; judging by the lobby at Rondo Daszyńskiego, it is not alone.

Magdalena Dziewguć has been managing Google Cloud Poland since 2021; on June 19, 2026, she announced her own departure without giving a reason, and since November 2024 she has been on the supervisory board of Bank Pekao [20]. In June 2026, Krzysztof Kaziów, head of client engineering for Central and Eastern Europe, joined the management board of Google Cloud Poland [22]. Paul Terence Manicle, CFO for the EMEA region, working in Dublin, has been on the Google Poland board since 2018 [23]. For the sake of order: the Polish branch of Google was co-created by Artur Waliszewski, who headed it from 2006 to around 2019 [25].

Dagmara Brzezińska became the new director of Google Poland in September 2026, after more than four years as vice-president for sales at InPost and, before that, a director at Allegro [21]. The person to whom I addressed a registered letter on September 11 had held the role for only a few days. I also contacted the new director twice on LinkedIn, on September 9 and September 11, the second time attaching proof that the three registered letters had been posted. As I said above, there has still been no answer. She is probably busy, but the papers will reach her desk today, as they will every other desk they need to reach. Her profile was publishing updates during this period [21a]. Updates can be published. A customer cannot be answered because nobody yet knows who that customer is. They will find out.

What does this mean for the user? Simply that when the inbox was disabled on September 1, the company was in the middle of a changing of the guard. I do not know and do not claim who was actually responsible for user matters during this period, or how the personnel changes affected the circulation of correspondence. I know one thing: no correspondence came back.

Ceneo showed what Google listens to: a judgment with a number on it

🔗

The most important Polish case against Google does not concern a blocked account but competition. It does, however, show exactly what interests me: how Google responds to a Polish court when the court truly insists.

On March 14, 2024, the intellectual property division of the Regional Court in Warsaw granted an interim injunction at the request of the Ceneo comparison service. The court prohibited Google from favouring its own comparison service in search results, subject to PLN 50,000 for every day of non-compliance; the application was granted in full [26]. The proceedings have the publicly confirmed case reference XXII GWO 24/24 and appear in a document of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection identifying Ceneo.pl as the entitled party and Google Ireland Limited as the obligated party [26]. Google did not comply with the injunction, apparently because PLN 50,000 a day was an amount it could ignore for a while. On May 9, 2025, the District Court for Wrocław-Fabryczna awarded Ceneo PLN 8 million from Google for 160 days of non-compliance, out of the 287 claimed [27]. According to press reports from August 2025, the judgment was not final and Ceneo appealed, seeking an award for all 287 days—PLN 14.35 million [28]. To this day, no public source confirms that the judgment is final or that it has been paid [29].

In parallel, on December 23, 2024, Ceneo filed a claim for roughly PLN 2.33 billion against Google Ireland Limited, Alphabet Inc., and Google LLC in the Regional Court in Warsaw [30]. Allegro, Ceneo’s owner, states in its consolidated annual report for 2025 that the proceedings are pending and that it cannot predict their outcome [30a]. The court’s electronic hearing list shows case I C 989/2024, with a hearing scheduled for October 9, 2026; the list does not identify the parties, and I do not assume this is the same case [31]. There is a concrete reason for caution: I C 989/2024 is pending in the First Civil Division, while the only reference for the Ceneo dispute with Google confirmed by an official document is XXII GWO 24/24, from the injunction proceedings. Anyone who merged those two references into one case would hand the other side a ready-made objection. No publicly available document identifies who represents Ceneo [32].

The conclusion is simple and unpleasant. Google did not comply with the Polish court’s injunction until penalties began to run into the millions. The dispute is being pursued by a company with its own legal department and a budget for years of litigation. For an individual user the scale is different, but the mechanism is the same: until there is an order backed by a sanction, requests and letters do not change the other party’s conduct by a millimetre. PLN 50,000 a day could be ignored. PLN 8 million could not.

Other Polish court cases, including one warning

🔗

Polish courts have already ruled against Google, so the thesis that "it makes no sense to sue the giant" does not stick to the facts. In March 2024, the Regional Court in Warsaw, in the case of the personal rights of a legal person violated in the search results, found that Polish law applies when the effects of the violation are felt in Poland [33]. In another case, from 2022, the court found the violation of the plaintiff's personal rights obvious, unlawful and culpable [34]. Google can be sued in Poland. The order "first appeal in the product, then out-of-court authority, finally the court", which Google describes in the communication on protection measures under the Digital Services Act, is a description of the options available, not a mandatory path [35].

A case from October 2024 is a warning against excessive optimism. The user of a certain website asked the Regional Court in Warsaw to unblock an account immediately and sought interim relief restoring access. The court found the claim manifestly unfounded [36]. Without the full reasons, we do not know why. The result alone says nothing about the prospects of a different case, but it does show that a court is not Google’s inverse—a machine that issues judgments on demand.

YouTube in Poland: archdiocese channel and others

🔗

The most recent Polish case of an account disappearing arose in the same week this text was written, as if someone decided to supply an illustration to order. On the night of September 7-8, 2026, the official channel of the Archdiocese of Łódź, which had been running for over fifteen years, disappeared from YouTube, with about 11,000 recordings, including homilies of subsequent metropolitans, and about 127,000 subscribers [37]. Administrators first received a message that the content was supposed to "seriously or repeatedly" violate community guidelines. The Curia stated that the decision was made without prior contact and without the possibility of explanation; broadcasts, homilies and interviews became unavailable [38]. At the same time, Bishop Piotr Kleszcz announced the blocking of his own channel [39]. On September 9, the Google press office presented journalists with a new version: the channel was temporarily blocked because the system detected a suspected breach, not a violation of the rules [40]. Two versions in two consecutive days, one company. The Curia says it did not receive any instructions to restore the main channel; the only notification went to the parallel-blocked private account of the auxiliary bishop [40]. As of September 14, there is no public confirmation that the channel has been restored; it is not under any of the tested addresses [41].

A large, recognizable institution first received an automatic message about the violation of the rules, and only after the case reached the media did it hear from Google that it was about something completely different. A single user who does not have a press office or a cardinal on his side remains stuck with the first explanation, without the right to the second.

Other Polish stories from YouTube have a different character and you have to admit it honestly so as not to put everything in one bag. In March 2024, YouTube removed channels linked to the weekly "Najwyższy Czas!", including a channel with 46,000 subscribers; the publisher announced legal action and moved to another platform [42]. In February 2025, Jerzy Zięba's channel was once again blocked [43]. It's a dispute about content moderation; the report does not show the full course of evaluations or appeals, so I do not place them in the same category as the private mailbox lock.

Separately, the report of the IT forum user from August 2025. He tested Google's paid cloud video generation service in the belief that he was using a free limit. Google charged him, as he claims, a number of clips impossible to generate at that time, issued an invoice for nearly PLN 3,400 and suspended the entire cloud account. His hobby website using Google maps has stopped working. Technical support refused a refund, and the logs made available were, according to him, incomplete [44]. This is a one-sided account. However, it describes a mechanism that is repeated in many countries: suspending one account cuts off all related services, like one fuse for the whole house.

Offices: who you can go to in Poland

🔗

The EU Digital Services Act, known as the DSA, provides for a digital services coordinator in each Member State to whom the user can complain about the platform. In Poland, the law implementing these provisions was vetoed by the President on January 9, 2026. The new version, Sejm print number 2694, passed through the Sejm and the Senate: the Sejm passed it on July 31, 2026, the Senate submitted an amendment on August 6, on September 4 the Sejm adopted the amendment and on the same day the law was handed over to the President. According to Art. 122 para. 2 of the Constitution, the President has 21 days to sign, i.e. until September 25, 2026; he can also veto the law or refer it to the Constitutional Tribunal. As of the closing day of this text, the Sejm website has the status of "unfinished work on the law", and on the President's website there is no message about either the signature or the veto [45]. In the meantime, the President of the Office of Electronic Communications, appointed by a resolution of the Council of Ministers of May 13, 2025, temporarily serves as the coordinator. None of his decisions regarding digital platforms are known [46]. So my complaint of September 4 went to a body that formally exists, but is waiting for a law on which to rely, like a guard without a key to the gate that he is supposed to guard. Details of the statutory path: [dsa-polska].

In the public set of decisions of the Office for Personal Data Protection, as of September 12, 2026, there is no fine imposed directly on Google for violation of the GDPR [47]. The oldest Polish complaint against Google, filed by the Panoptykon Foundation on January 28, 2019 and concerning profiling in advertising, was transferred to Belgium, and the proceedings were suspended until the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union. There is still no final decision. The suspension has a legal basis; however, it shows the time horizon that must be taken into account if someone is counting on quick help from this side [48].

In the set of decisions of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, there is also no penalty imposed directly on Google. There are penalties for companies trading false opinions on Google platforms, from 30 to about 50 thousand zlotys, and a merger-control case involving Google [49]. This is what the balance of law enforcement towards Google itself looks like in Poland: a lot of activity around, zero decisions in the center.

The user whose account Google has disabled therefore has three offices in Poland, in whose collections there is no decision against Google on the individual user, the court, which in a competitive case ordered Google to pay millions for breaching an interim injunction, and a company that replaced the management within a year and whose Polish companies are separate from the Irish company indicated as a party to the contract. There is a map, but there is no road on it. There is no one in Poland who is responsible for this.

Part two. World

Germany: the court that ordered the data to be returned

🔗

A court ruling regarding a blocked Google account comes from Germany. This is a decision of the Regional Court in Tübingen from the beginning of 2023, made in interim proceedings. We know it only from a law firm's account, not from the court publication, so I describe them carefully; the full text is not available in any open German database. According to this report, the court ordered Google to allow downloading data from an illegally blocked account: mail, contacts, calendar, documents, photos and videos. The request for full restoration of the account was to be rejected. In 2023, the ruling was not final; its further fate could not be determined [50] [51].

If that account is accurate, the court did not have to decide whether Google had the right to close the account to order its content to be released. User data and account decision are two separate issues, although Google treats them as one package that disappears completely.

The German media also described the mechanism behind the many locks. In December 2022, Heise reported that Google simplified the appeal procedure after a wave of false alarms: automated scanning flagged innocent photos as material depicting child abuse, which led to the immediate blocking of the account [52]. In 2024, the weekly "Stern" described a user whose photos the system classified in this way; he lost access to all his data [53]. The German tech blog in 2024 called Apple, Google and Microsoft the "dirty three" for the way of blocking accounts without transparency and a viable appeal; this is the opinion of the author of the blog, but it is hardly surprising that someone finally called it that way [54]. German lawyers publish guides for companies with blocked advertising accounts: summons, deadline, application for interim relief. A blockade without an understandable justification is considered to be appealable in Germany [55].

France: a penalty for ads in the inbox

🔗

The French data protection authority CNIL imposed a fine of 325 million euros on Google on September 1, 2025: 200 million for Google LLC and 125 million for Google Ireland. The reason was the display of ads in Gmail between messages without the consent of users and the lack of valid consent to cookies when creating an account [56]. The decision does not apply to account blocks. However, it shows two things: that the national regulator can punish Google for what happens inside the Gmail inbox, and that the target of the penalty was, among others, Google Ireland, i.e. the same company that is a party to my contract. French lawyers also point out that Google's advertising regulations provide for immediate suspension of the account without warning in the event of a "gross violation"; what is gross is decided by the company itself, i.e. the judge in its own case [57].

Spain, Netherlands, Italy, United Kingdom

🔗

The Spanish press described two cases similar to mine. In September 2022, the daily "El País" published a report of a user whose account Google closed for "sexual content", without specifying what content it was about; the user lost all the data [58]. The regional service described in 2024 and 2025 the "digital hell" of a person whose account and associated e-mail address were canceled without a clear reason and without the possibility of appeal [59]. I only know both stories from newspapers.

In the Netherlands, the data protection authority accepts complaints against Google regarding the processing of personal data; a complaint can be filed in Dutch or English within six weeks of the company's response, and the authority may impose a ban on processing or a fine [60]. This is the path for data, not account recovery.

In Italy, the competition authority closed an abuse-of-dominance case concerning data portability in July 2023, accepting Google's commitments; previously, the Italian data protection authority found Google Analytics to be incompatible with the GDPR due to data transfer to the United States [61].

In the UK, the Information Commissioner's Office has dealt with complaints against Google regarding the right to remove data from search results. Most of the 2023 and 2024 cases ended without further action; in one, the office wrote to Google informally [62]. The British register of companies also shows Google Payment Limited, a 2006 company controlled by Alphabet, in which the aforementioned Valentine Anthony Bohan has been the director since February 2025 [63].

Ireland: where the other party to the agreement lives

🔗

The party to my agreement is Google Ireland Limited. The Irish Data Protection Commission, abbreviated as DPC, acts as the main supervisory authority for Google in the Union. Therefore, the way DPC works is important for the user in Poland, even if that user has never set foot in Dublin.

The complaint of Johnny Ryan and the Irish Council of Civil Liberties about the Google advertising auction system remains a long-standing matter. It has still not been completed. The complainants accused the DPC of not fully examining the case; the Irish High Court dismissed the allegation on 28 August 2023 and the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling [64]. In the DPC decision register, as of September 12, 2026, there is no fine for Google from 2023 to 2026; at the same time, Meta, TikTok, LinkedIn and WhatsApp were fined [65]. DPC has been conducting proceedings against Google since September 12, 2024 regarding the PaLM 2 language model; there is no final decision [66]. The DPC document of November 18, 2022 describes a complaint about access to Google Photos metadata: after the agency's intervention, the company provided the available metadata and the case was considered amicably closed. It was not a dispute about restoring the account [67].

European Union institutions: numbers and penalties

🔗

The transparency reports that Google submits on the basis of the DSA show the scale of account suspensions in the Union. From September 2023 to February 2024, Google suspended 9,067 accounts, from March to June 2024 3,274, in the second half of 2024 3,621, and in the first half of 2025 3,490. A total of 19,452 suspensions in 22 months. The reports do not separate automatic decisions from human decisions [68], which in itself answers the question of how much the company cares about this distinction. Any such decision should go to the EU database of justifications, where Google reports data from Maps, Play Store, Shopping and YouTube [69]. Whether it is possible to read from the entries in this database how many decisions were made automatically, it was not possible to determine; the database is difficult to use, and the entries are ambiguous [70].

Two decisions from 2026 show that EU institutions can punish Google, although not for blocking accounts. On July 2, 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union upheld the full penalty of €4.125 billion for Android practices; the penalty is final [71]. On the twenty-third of July 2026, the European Commission imposed 890 million euros on Google on the basis of the Digital Markets Act: 460 million for favouring its own search engine services and 430 million for limiting the ability of developers in the Play store to direct customers outside the store [72]. Brussels can enforce billions of euros. So far, it has not obtained a single explanation for one disabled inbox.

ARTICLE 19 described on April 4, 2024, the suspension of its Google Ads account in December 2023 and four months of attempts to obtain explanations; on April 5, the account was restored, which the organization attributed to public pressure. In a separate post of November 13, 2025, Google declared more than 80 percent fewer false suspensions and resolving 99 percent of advertisers' appeals within a day. These are the numbers about Google Ads, given by the company itself. For Gmail users, Google does not publish such numbers, and the outcome of the appeal does not necessarily mean the restoration of the account [73].

India: about a year without an account because of a childhood photo

🔗

The eloquent individual history comes from India. Neel Shukla, a twenty-four-year-old engineer, lost access to his Google account because the system marked his own childhood photo as material depicting child abuse: a photograph of him aged two in a bathtub, taken by his grandmother. Along with the account, he lost mail, disk, photos and payments. The blockade lasted about a year; the report does not show whether the account was restored. The Gujarat High Court took up the case and banned Google from erasing data [74]. It's a pure mechanism that Heise described in Germany: an automated system that is wrong, and a man who for a year can't convince anyone that it's a mistake. A year. For a bathtub photo from twenty years ago.

Australia: an ombudsman who counts complaints but cannot decide them

🔗

The Australian Telecommunications Ombudsman, abbreviated as TIO, publishes data on complaints about digital platforms. It received 719 complaints in 2025, 20 percent more than a year earlier. A separate list assigns Google 303 submissions and a share of 18 percent, the largest of the companies listed, ahead of Hubbl, Apple, Microsoft and Meta; the bases of the two statements are not identical, so the numbers should not be converted from one to the other. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to decide complaints on platforms; he can only register them [75], which is the official equivalent of compassion without a prescription. The account access category, indicated in the report as 36 percent, includes various platforms, hacks and locks [76]. Earlier, in 2021 and 2022, an Australian federal court ruled at the request of the Consumer Protection Office that Google was misleading users about the collection of location data, and ordered a payment of 60 million Australian dollars [77].

North and South America

🔗

In the United States, there is no single body to which a user could file a complaint about an account blocking; there are court cases and actions of the Federal Trade Commission. A class action is pending in a federal court in California against Google to withdraw a free version of office services for businesses and threaten to suspend accounts for those who do not start paying; the court has certified the class, the deadline to opt out has passed on January 5, 2026, and the trial has not yet taken place [78]. According to reports from 2025, the Federal Trade Commission investigated whether YouTube misled users about the rules for suspending accounts, deleting content, and the right to appeal [79]. In January 2024, EPIC and Accountable Tech filed a complaint with the same commission about Google's breach of an earlier location data settlement [80].

Google itself publishes the rules for such an eventuality, which sounds almost like politeness. After suspending a company Workspace account for non-payment, the data does not disappear immediately: Google stores it for about 51 to 60 days, after which it can be permanently deleted [81]. The Google Fi phone service account may be suspended for arrears, suspected fraud, unusual activity or violation of the terms and conditions, and after 60 days terminated with the loss of the number; users described suspensions for reasons they did not understand [82]. In May 2024, Ars Technica described a case in which Google Cloud mistakenly deleted a business customer account, resulting in two weeks of downtime; the error was on Google's side [83]. The same service warned in January 2025 that after the expiration of the domains of former Google customers, the logins to related services could be taken over by the new owners of these domains [84]. For the sake of order: YouTube in 2018 and 2019 carried out mass removals of channels for hate speech, in one quarter over 17 thousand; this is a different type of decision, conscious and announced to the public [85].

Canada's Privacy Commissioner ruled in 2025 that the complaint against Google was justified and remained unresolved; it was a refusal to remove articles from search results by name [86]. In Argentina, the daily newspaper "La Nación" described a user who went on vacation and on his return did not have access to an account with 400,000 photos; Google closed the account without a clear justification, and the user has been trying to retrieve them for two years [87]. In Brazil, there is a formal consumer path: a government complaints platform, a consumer protection authority and a court; the procedure requires a tax number and an account in the government system [88].

Further corners and other categories

🔗

A few examples from other countries belong to different categories and I list them to distinguish them from the blocking of a private mailbox, not to add ballast. In Japan, the media described the policy of removing inactive accounts for two years, announced in 2020 and implemented in 2023; it is a structural problem, not an arbitrary block [89]. In South Korea, complaints of privacy violations related to Google accounts are accepted by the state's Internet security agency [90]. In Nigeria, according to the newspaper "Punch", Google, Microsoft and TikTok deactivated a total of 13.5 million accounts in 2024 with more than 750,000 complaints; the number concerns three companies together [91]. In South Africa, the competition committee reportedly conducted an investigation into the bias of Google's algorithms against local media [92]. The UN Special Rapporteur wrote in August 2024 about the disproportionate restriction of Palestinian content after October 7, 2023, including the suspension of accounts [93]. Advertising-account cutoffs in Russia, Crimea, Iran and Syria from 2022 to 2024 resulted from sanctions [94], and the blocks of Google services in Turkey from 2007 to 2020 were decisions of the state, not the company [95].

Part three. What follows from this

Common pattern

🔗

If you put aside competitive issues, sanctions and state censorship, one repetitive mechanism, identical on three continents, emerges from the cases described. The decision to close the account is made by the system, not the human; this can be seen in the German and Indian cases of children's photos, in the Łódź channel, which first "violated the rules" and then turned out to be "suspected breach", in my mailbox, which became "spam" for six complaints, and in EU reports, which cannot say how many of the 19,452 suspensions anyone has read. The justification remains general: "spam", "sexual content", "serious or repeated violation", without indicating anything specific. The appeal returns to the same system and brings the same answer as if someone were bouncing the ball off the same wall. The user's data becomes hostage to the account decision, although the court in Tübingen has shown that the two issues can be separated when someone really demands it. External channels are weak: the Australian ombudsman counts complaints, but cannot settle them; the Irish regulator has been conducting cases for years and has not punished Google for three years; the Polish coordinator exists temporarily and is waiting for the bill, which in turn is waiting for signature.

There is also the other side of this pattern. Where the court appears with a sanction, Google reacts: daily penalties in the Ceneo case increased to 8 million zlotys before anything changed; the Tübingen court ordered the release of data; the Gujarat High Court banned the deletion of Neel Shukla's data. For the user, this means that letters and complaints build documentation, but the change is forced only by a ruling with a specific amount. Complaints to the offices create a trace, and the publicity of the case caused the Łódź curia to get a different explanation from Google in two days, instead of waiting a year like an engineer in India. And one more thing: the bank I went to with the same set of evidence settled the dispute in eighteen days. It's possible. You just have to want to read.

Where the similarity ends

🔗

The Ceneo case, the penalties of the European Commission and the Court of Justice, the decision of the French CNIL and the Australian court are about competition, advertising and data, not closed accounts; they talk about how Google treats regulators, not how it treats users. YouTube channels related to political journalism or alternative medicine are disputes about moderation of content. Cut-offs in Russia or Iran are sanctions. Blockades in Turkey are decisions of the state. The numbers from Australia and Nigeria include many companies and many causes at once. I know the stories from Argentina, Spain and the Polish forum from one-sided accounts. Anyone who compares these examples in public should always indicate which category a given case belongs to, instead of throwing everything into one convenient bag with the inscription "Google". I did it. I'm waiting for Google to do the same with my mailbox: it will indicate the category, the message and the person who signed it.

What we don't know

🔗

Finally, a list of questions that this text does not answer because public sources are silent. I don't know if the case of I C 989/2024 in the Warsaw court's hearing list is a Ceneo lawsuit. I don't know if the fine of 8 million zlotys is legally binding and paid. I don't know who represents Ceneo. I don't know if the channel of the Archdiocese of Łódź has been restored; the state as of the closing day of the text is still a 404 error. I don't know how the case ended in Tübingen. I don't know who physically operates Topaz Computing servers and where the Polish user's data is located. I don't know what the results of Gmail users' appeals are, because Google only publishes numbers for advertisers. I do not know what will happen to the law on the coordinator of digital services, although the deadline for the President's decision is September 25. Each of these questions can be checked. This is the next to-do list, not an excuse for today. And we will definitely find out.

What disappears with the inbox

🔗

One block is not an “email problem”. A disabled Gmail account is a dead inbox, which continues to receive recovery codes and password resets from services to which I logged in with this address: LinkedIn, Dropbox, Cloudflare and about a hundred others [98]. Access to paid Workspace is cut off in the company. And the entire account may disappear: the conditions list among the grounds for the suspension gross or repeated violation of the rules, but also a legal obligation and a "reasonable suspicion of damage" [96].

Google Help describes how to download data from some services after an account is disabled and nowhere does it guarantee that this will be possible [97]. In my Google Takeout of September 3, among the sixty-two items available for download, there was no Gmail [98]. Mail, which the machine recognized as spam, cannot even be downloaded. Sixty-two items to download. No mail.

And you?

🔗

Your mailbox may disappear in the same way, and no one will answer. What will disappear with it? Documents from Drive. Children's photos. Calendar. Channel. Android phone. Logins that have been your digital life for years and that you will not have time to recreate from memory. Who will answer you? In Poland no one; the rules say directly: Dublin.

How long does an appeal take? In my case five attempts, five identical refusals, zero humans on the other side. And if you run a business, the whole company hangs on one account that can be switched off by a machine you cannot call, cannot write to and cannot visit, because security will not let you in. Do one thing today: check what you can really download from your account, before the account decides for you.

One "log in with Google" button in ten places is ten doors on one lock. The key to this lock is held by the machine, which does not answer the phone. Convenience today; hostage tomorrow. I made this mistake once. I won't do it a second time. I am warning you in advance. The address is one, the man on the other side is not there, and the hand on the switch belongs to the machine.

Do not sign in everywhere with Gmail. You will lose everything through a machine's mistake. In Poland, there is no one accountable.

---

Sources

Poland

[1] National Court Register (KRS), current extracts: https://api-krs.ms.gov.pl/api/krs/odpisAktualny/0000240611, https://api-krs.ms.gov.pl/api/krs/odpisAktualny/0000812767, https://api-krs.ms.gov.pl/api/krs/odpisAktualny/0000840059. ↩

[2] KRS, full copy of Google Poland sp. z o.o., no. 0000240611, as of 25.06.2026: capital and partners; address of Emilia Plater 53 deleted by entry No. 46 of 05.02.2024, address of Rondo Ignacy Daszyńskiego 2C entered by the same entry; reading OdpisPelny 14.09.2026, https://api-krs.ms.gov.pl/api/krs/OdpisPelny/0000240611?rejestr=P&format=json. ↩

[2a] Screenshots of Google search results of 09.09 and 12.09.2026 and records of map catalogues, author's documentation of 12.09.2026; copy on the case website: [evidence], https://dossier.reasoner.pl/pl/. ↩

[3] Financial statements of Google Poland sp. z o.o. for 2025, https://ekrs.ms.gov.pl (revenue PLN 2.01 billion); year 2024: https://press.pl/tresc/88068 (revenue over PLN 1.53 billion, net profit approx. PLN 128 million, income tax approx. PLN 38 million). ↩

[4] https://gazetaprawna.pl/podatki/artykuly/10774839 (the largest CIT payers 2024). ↩

[5] KRS, copy of Google Cloud Poland sp. z o.o., no. 0000840059 (as of 01.07.2026). ↩

[5a] Financial statement of Google Poland sp. z o.o. (employment 2,348 persons), https://ekrs.ms.gov.pl; figure quoted on the case website, https://dossier.reasoner.pl/pl/. ↩

[5b] Alphabet Inc., annual report (Form 10-K) for the fiscal year ending 31.12.2025: 190,820 employees, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204426000018/goog-20251231.htm, read 14.09.2026. ↩

[6] https://bizraport.pl/krs/0000840059, secondary source, data aggregator; does not replace the original financial statement. ↩

[7] KRS, extract of Topaz Computing sp. z o.o., no. 0000812767 (as of 29.04.2026): entry 29.11.2019, capital PLN 105,000,000, shareholder Raiden Unlimited Company; https://rejestr.io/krs/812767. ↩

[8] KRS, copy of Topaz Computing, PKD codes. ↩

[9] National Court Register, copy of Topaz Computing, board data. ↩

[10] Companies House UK, company 05903713, officers: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05903713; professional profile V. Bohana. ↩

[11] Professional profile of S. Karaivanov (LinkedIn); KRS Topaz Computing, board data. ↩

[12] Google Cloud Platform subprocessor lists, archived versions from 2021: https://cloud.google.com/terms/subprocessors/index-20210708, https://cloud.google.com/terms/subprocessors-20210610. ↩

[12a] Financial statements of Topaz Computing sp. z o.o. for 2020-2025, https://ekrs.ms.gov.pl, read 13.09.2026 (revenue, profit, equipment purchases, employment, payroll, energy contract commitment, corporate income tax). ↩

[13] https://cloud.google.com/archive/terms/service-data-subprocessors-20260604 and archived versions 2025-04-30 to 2026-06-04; current list https://cloud.google.com/terms/subprocessors, "Last modified August 20, 2026", reading 13.09.2026 (copy of the page preserved). ↩

[15] https://workspace.google.com/terms/subprocessors; https://cloud.google.com/terms/sccs/3p-subprocessors. ↩

[16] https://solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Raiden-Unlimited-Company-431739; according to this source Raiden has a handful of employees and assets counted in billions of euros. ↩

[17] https://solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Google-Europe-Middle-East-And-Africa-Unlimited-Company-657921; thecurrency.news, Google structure diagram 2023 (PDF). ↩

[17a] A list of the group's infrastructure companies in eleven countries on the basis of national registers; for some companies, the owner is Alphabet or Google LLC directly, and for two (Italy, Mexico) the partner is not confirmed in the original source. ↩

[18] Issuer of invoices: two invoices issued for the author's company, Google Workspace from 01.02.2026 and Google Cloud from 01.06.2026, issuer Google Cloud Poland sp. z o.o.; author's private documents, archived reading 13.09.2026. They are not proof of a payment provider or a private Gmail provider. ↩

[18a] Google Payments terms of service (Polish version of 04.03.2025): service provider Google Ireland Limited, https://payments.google.com, read 13.09.2026. ↩

[18b] Google One subscription terms: seller of consumer services Google Commerce Limited, Dublin, https://one.google.com/terms-of-service?hl=pl, read 14.09.2026. ↩

[18c] Google Payments terms for sellers: Google Payment Ireland Limited, Dublin, registration no. 598776, https://payments.google.com; three Google entities operate in the KRS and none has "Payment" in its name, read 14.09.2026. ↩

[18d] Google Cloud Help: "local billing entity: Google Cloud Poland sp. z o.o.", https://support.google.com/cloud/answer/10119385, read 14.09.2026. ↩

[19] Professional profile of M. Kotlarczyk (LinkedIn). ↩

[19a] KRS, full copy of Google Poland sp. z o.o.: self-existent proxy entered by entry No. 41 of 29.12.2022, not deleted; reading OdpisPelny 14.09.2026; departure 31.03.2026: https://press.pl (91091), https://xyz.pl (3438), wirtualnemedia.pl. ↩

[19b] Forbes Women, "Forbes Women 50 over 50 list", 20.08.2026: https://www.forbes.pl/forbeswomen/zawodowy-piwot-po-kilku-dekadach-kariery-jest-mozliwy-lista-forbes-women-50-po-50/gz7nq2x, read 14.09.2026. ↩

[20] Professional profile of M. Dziewguć (LinkedIn); departure announcement 19.06.2026, https://xyz.pl (3927), wirtualnemedia.pl. ↩

[21] Professional profile of D. Brzezińska (LinkedIn). ↩

[21a] Messages to D. Brzezińska via LinkedIn of 09.09 and 11.09.2026 (the second with proof of posting of the registered letters), unanswered as of 14.09.2026; screenshots in the author's documentation: [evidence]. ↩

[22] Professional profile of K. Kaziowa (LinkedIn). ↩

[23] Professional profile of P. Manicle (LinkedIn); KRS Google Poland, board data. ↩

[25] Professional profile A. Waliszewski (LinkedIn); industry press. ↩

[26] https://gazetaprawna.pl/firma-i-prawo/artykuly/9488026; https://uokik.gov.pl/bip/ceneopl-sp-z-oo-z-siedziba-we-wroclawiu; https://uokik.gov.pl/Download/766. ↩

[27] https://gazetaprawna.pl/firma/artykuly/11191513; https://tvn24.pl/biznes/tech/google-zaplaci-ceneo-8-mln-zl (st8615847). ↩

[28] https://itreseller.pl (Ceneo wins against Google); https://gazetaprawna.pl/firma-i-prawo/artykuly/9870677. ↩

[29] https://wroclaw.so.gov.pl/wokanda; https://wroclaw.sa.gov.pl/wokanda (no trace of finality). ↩

[30] https://bankier.pl/wiadomosc/Ceneo-pl-zlozylo-pozew-przeciwko-Google (8865932); https://tvn24.pl/biznes/tech/ceneo-kontra-google (st8234703). ↩

[30a] Allegro.eu, Consolidated Annual Report for 2025, p. 256: "The proceedings are pending. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the legal proceedings.", https://about.allegro.eu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/ALLEGRO-Annual-Consolidated-Report-2025.pdf, read 14.09.2026. ↩

[31] https://bip.warszawa.so.gov.pl/e-wokanda/1339. ↩

[32] https://uokik.gov.pl/Download/766; https://wozniaklegal.com/en/news-and-insight/406; https://kg-legal.eu. ↩

[33] https://orzeczenia.ms.gov.pl, IV C 608/19, District Court Warsaw, reasoning of 13.03.2024. ↩

[34] https://saos.org.pl/judgments/537304 (I C 733/22). ↩

[35] https://gazetaprawna.pl/twoje-prawo/artykuly/10822746; https://support.google.com/european-union-digital-services-act-redress-options/answer/13535501. ↩

[36] https://orzeczenia.warszawa.so.gov.pl, II C 630/24, 01.10.2024. ↩

[37] https://stacja7.pl (the case of the disappearance of the channel of the Archdiocese of Łódź); TVP3 Łódź, lodz.tvp.pl (95320173). ↩

[38] https://dorzeczy.pl/religia/940105. ↩

[39] https://stacja7.pl, as above. ↩

[40] https://stacja7.pl, as above (Google press office position via Gazeta.pl); https://idziemy.pl/spoleczenstwo (93731); https://deon.pl/kosciol/znamy-powod-znikniecia-kanalu-archidiecezji-lodzkiej-z-youtube-wcale-nie-chodzilo-o-naruszenie-zasad,3527017. ↩

[41] Review of press sources and direct verification of YouTube channel addresses (answer 404) 13.09 in the evening and 14.09.2026, without confirmation of restoration. ↩

[42] nczas.info, 13.03.2024. ↩

[43] spidersweb.pl, February 2025. ↩

[44] https://forum.pasja-informatyki.pl/599154. ↩

[45] https://sejm.gov.pl, the legislative process for Bill No. 2694 (July 31, 2026 adoption, August 6, 2026 position of the Senate, September 4, 2026 adoption of the amendment and submission to the President; status as of 13.09.2026); art. 122 para. 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland; https://prezydent.pl, signed laws. ↩

[46] https://uke.gov.pl/uslugi-cyfrowe/koordynator; Council of Ministers resolution of 13.05.2025. ↩

[47] https://uodo.gov.pl, decision register. ↩

[48] https://panoptykon.org/iab-sprawa-tcf. ↩

[49] https://decyzje.uokik.gov.pl. ↩

World

[50] https://recht.help, 03.02.2023 (LG Tübingen, law firm's account). ↩

[51] Not to be confused with the Tübingen case: a document of the Regional Court in Stuttgart with a similar case number, 8 O 16/23 (hearing 22.03.2023), concerns a Facebook user's data and a dispute with Meta Platforms Ireland, not the blocking of a Google account; https://www.wbs.legal/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/LG-Stuttgart-8-O-16-23.pdf, PDF pp. 1-3, read 13.09.2026. ↩

[52] https://heise.de/news/Missbrauchsverdacht-Google-erleichtert-Einspruch-gegen-Accountsperren-7445938. ↩

[53] https://stern.de/panorama/konto-sperrung (32656698). ↩

[54] https://borncity.com/blog/2024/03/24/kontensperren-apple-google-microsoft-die-schmutzigen-drei. ↩

[55] https://anwalt.de/rechtstipps/kontosperrung-bei-google-ads (242707). ↩

[56] https://cnil.fr, decision of 01.09.2025 and press release. ↩

[57] Publication by lawyer Charles Simon, September 2024 (LinkedIn). ↩

[58] https://elpais.com/tecnologia/2022-09-17. ↩

[59] https://cmmedia.es/noticias/espana/calvario-digital-google-cancela-mi-cuenta-correo-asociado. ↩

[60] https://autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/en/submitting-a-tip-off-or-a-complaint-to-the-ap. ↩

[61] https://en.agcm.it/en/media/press-releases/2023/7/A552. ↩

[62] https://ico.org.uk, data sets on complaints for Q4 2023/24. ↩

[63] https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05903713. ↩

[64] breakingnews.ie (High Court dismisses claim that DPC failed to fully investigate alleged Google data breach). ↩

[65] https://dataprotection.ie/en/dpc-guidance/decisions/fines. ↩

[66] https://dataprotection.ie, announcement of the initiation of proceedings on the Google AI model, 12.09.2024. ↩

[67] DPC, document of 18.11.2022 concerning Google Ireland Limited and Google Photos metadata, https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2026-08/ie_2022-11_decisionpublic_redacted_1.pdf, points 1, 3, 7a, 10-12; reading of the preserved copy 13.09.2026. ↩

[68] Google transparency reports under the DSA, https://storage.googleapis.com/transparencyreport (periods IX 2023 - VI 2025). ↩

[69] https://transparency.dsa.ec.europa.eu/explore-data/download. ↩

[70] As above; self-assessment of database availability. ↩

[71] https://curia.europa.eu, press release no. 93/26 of 02.07.2026. ↩

[72] https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu, communication from 23.07.2026 about a penalty of 890 million euros. ↩

[73] https://www.article19.org/resources/google-article-19-unfounded-accusations-of-unacceptable-business-practices/ (04.04.2024, updated 05.04.2024); https://blog.google/products/ads-commerce/improved-accuracy-account-suspensions/ (13.11.2025). The first source is the relationship of the organization; the second is Google's declaration of Ads, not Gmail. ↩

[74] https://livelaw.in, Gujarat High Court, Neel Shukli case (252700). ↩

[75] https://tio.com.au/news (record-high digital platform complaints 2025); https://tio.com.au/data-and-reports/digital-platforms-complaints-insights. ↩

[76] As above, TIO report of December 2025, category table. ↩

[77] https://accc.gov.au/media-release/google-llc-to-pay-60-million-for-misleading-representations. ↩

[78] https://cand.uscourts.gov, Rabin v. Google LLC, 5:22-cv-04547. ↩

[79] outlookbusiness.com/deeptech (FTC probe, YouTube policies). ↩

[80] epic.org, complaint to the FTC of 18.01.2024 (PDF). ↩

[81] https://knowledge.workspace.google.com/admin/billing/restore-a-suspended-subscription. ↩

[82] https://phonearena.com/news/google-fi-accounts-suspended (171097). ↩

[83] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/05/google-cloud-accidentally-nukes-customer-account. ↩

[84] https://arstechnica.com/security/2025/01/startup-necromancy. ↩

[85] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_suspensions. ↩

[86] https://priv.gc.ca, PIPEDA Findings 2025-002. ↩

[87] https://lanacion.com.ar/tecnologia (nid2119277). ↩

[88] https://support.google.com/accounts/community-video/387577500 (pt-BR), social media material, not the source of the Brazilian authority. ↩

[89] https://itmedia.co.jp/pcuser/articles/2312/03/news032. ↩

[90] https://kisa.or.kr/1030402. ↩

[91] https://punchng.com/google-microsoft-tiktok-block-13-5m-accounts-in-nigeria. ↩

[92] vanguardngr.com, 03.2026 (SERAP, FCCPC). ↩

[93] https://un.org/unispal, report of the Special Rapporteur of 23.08.2024. ↩

[94] https://seroundtable.com/google-deactivates-russia-based-adsense-accounts-37889. ↩

[95] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Google. ↩

[96] Terms of use of Google services, Polish version of 30.07.2026, section "Suspension and blocking access to Google services", https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=pl&gl=pl, copy preserved on 07.09.2026; extract constituting Annex 6 to the UOKiK notice. ↩

[97] Google Help, "Your account has been disabled", https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/40695?hl=pl, read 13.09.2026; preserved copy of HTML in the author's proof folder. ↩

[98] Author's statements: a list of 62 Google Takeout items without Gmail, statement dated 03.09.2026 (attachment to the UODO complaint); number of services and logins from the recording of a conversation with the Google hotline from 09.09.2026, in which the author informs about about a hundred logins connected to the account. Recording and transcript in the author's possession, anonymized version on the website. ↩

[99] Revolut Business decisions on the contested Anthropic charges: refunds from September 8, 9, 10 and 13, 2026, a total of PLN 735.86 and EUR 358.68 for twelve of the thirteen transactions; documents on the case page: revolut-20260913-decyzja-c-public, revolut-20260913-api-wyciag-public, https://dossier.reasoner.pl/pl/. ↩