u/FuryOfArcann

Edit: You should have your Remind Me's set past 30 days based upon the date for the next hearing. Don't want to give too much information on the exact date, but the court is backlogged right now and 30 days won't be enough.

This is a long story and I am a very rambly person, but if you're interested, fasten your seatbelts and live vicariously through me and my attempt to hold Google accountable.

Let me preface this by saying that I am not a lawyer/barrister/solicitor, I am not giving legal advice, and I'm just an average person that is sick of companies screwing over customers and getting away with it. I also have made this intentionally vague for anonymity purposes while this plays out.

As you may be aware, in June Google notified customers that they were going to be updating the privacy settings by retiring the "Web & App Activity" settings in favor of "Search Services History" and "Personalized Recommendations." In the email for this notification Google expressly stated:

>"If [Web & App Activity and Search Personalization settings] are currently on, these new settings will stay on. If they're off, the new settings will be off."

The email continued on to say that these changes would be coming "in the next coming days."

Well...me being me, and having a near rabid mistrust of companies immediately went into my Google Account to ensure the settings were off and I'm sure that you can guess what happened. The settings not only had already changed prior to the email notification (and not the coming days as stated), but I was also opted into these settings, when for years I have opted out of them.

I. Was. Pissed. I immediately opted out (something I never should have been opted into) and let sleeping dogs lie. After a week this topic was brought up on a Discord I'm in and that's when I looked at what data had been pulled and noticed that applications like Phone, Messages, Signal, Terminal, and others had been included in the most recent information sent to to Google.

Before the settings change, almost no data had been transferred, 0 bytes received, less than 300 bytes transmitted. From June 9th to June 17th, hundreds of thousands of bytes. Now, I'm not a person that puts stock into coincidences, and of course, correlation does not equal causation, but something was off.

Late June my phone was stolen so I ordered a new one as a stop gap while I decided if I wanted the Fold 8 or the Razr Fold to replace my Fold 7 and it arrived the next day. Since I just setup the phone, I pulled the phone's files again and the amount transferred had increased even more. This was a new phone, with less applications installed and not even 20 days after I ensured that I was opted out of the new privacy settings. This was my tipping point and I began drafting my documents and gathering my evidence and logs.

(A quick time out and let me make something clear here: I do not know exactly what data was transmitted. That's actually what I told the court. The server-side content and destination are Google's records, not mine. In my rider to the lead document, I wrote the following:

>Because the precise content and ultimate destination of the data reflected in Exhibit H is recorded on, and known only to, Defendant's own servers and infrastructure, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court direct Defendant to produce records sufficient to identify the destination, content, and purpose of the network transmissions reflected in Exhibits H and M occurring on and after June 9, 2026.

OK, Time In)

Where I live, we have ridiculously strong consumer protection laws, including one under which plaintiffs are eligible for the cost of the violation or a large amount per violation, whichever is greater. So with multiple dates that it seems this has been an issue I filed for the maximum amount allowed under small claims. Since I'm just an average person, it took me multiple tries to get the correct paperwork submitted, but the paperwork was finally accepted, Google was officially served, and the case was scheduled.

Fast forward and Google requests to postpone the hearing another 45+ days in order to research and "contact the Plaintiff" (spoiler alert: they never did). This was not acted upon by the court and no communication had been sent by Google to either me or the court during this period. But then six minutes before the courts closed for the day and the night before the case was scheduled to be heard Google submitted a motion to dismiss. In their motion Google stated that based on the Terms of Service dated July 30, 2026:

1. This is not the parties' agreed-upon forum
2. Google did not violate the consumer protection law or commit unlawful trade practices as Plaintiff does not identify what data was transmitted, the destination of each transmission, or a use prohibited by the cited settings.
3. Google's Terms of Service limit the company's liability to [paltry small amount].

I responded that night with the following (I'm just going to paste it near-verbatim with small edits for anonymity and flow, apologies):

• Point 1

>Google has not established that the cited forum-selection clause was in effect at the time relevant to this dispute. Google's own Exhibit A is expressly dated "Effective July 30, 2026;” a date after the conduct alleged in the Complaint, and after the Complaint was filed. Google bears the burden on its own motion to establish that this version of the governing-law clause, rather than whatever version was in effect when Plaintiff's account was created in 2014 or when the conduct at issue occurred, actually applies. It has not done so.

• Point 2

>Google faults Plaintiff for lacking information that, by Google's own admission, exists only on Google's own servers. Paragraph 14 of the Complaint expressly states that "the precise content and ultimate destination of the data reflected in Exhibit H is recorded on, and known only to, Defendant's own servers and infrastructure," and asks this Court to direct Google to produce records identifying that destination, content, and purpose. Google opposes that very request while simultaneously arguing that Plaintiff's failure to supply the same information warrants dismissal. A defendant may not convert its own informational advantage into a pleading deficiency for the plaintiff.

• Point 3

>As with the forum clause, Google relies on a Terms of Service exhibit effective July 30, 2026, without establishing that this version, or this cap, applied to conduct occurring [previously].

>The private right of action provides an independent statutory remedy: a prevailing consumer is entitled to "[t]reble damages, or substantial amount per violation, whichever is greater," plus reasonable attorney's fees and punitive damages. This is a legislatively created remedy, not a contractual one, and a merchant's own form contract cannot be used to override a statutory consumer remedy.

I then further continued in my response:

>In any event, the Complaint is not conclusory. It identifies specific system packages (com.google.android.as and com.google.android.as.oss), named background services ("EchoJobService," "HeartbeatService," "AstreaGrpcService"), specific timestamps, and byte-level network transmission logs. Most significantly, the Complaint alleges that the same background operation recurred approximately forty minutes after Plaintiff disabled the relevant setting, and that the pattern repeated over the following eight days and was independently corroborated on a second device. Google's motion does not address this sequence.

>This pattern is consistent with conduct Google has previously resolved through state consumer-protection enforcement, including in this jurisdiction. Between 2022 and 2023, Google settled a series of state actions alleging that account settings displayed as "off" while the underlying tracking or personalization continued: (chart of six relevant settlements totaling over $600M in the US, as well as other fines worldwide)

The next day, we log into the court session and I'm ready to go after staying up late going through everything again and again. Google is present, I'm present, and judge is present, but the judge notes that there is a motion to dismiss, opposition to the motion to dismiss, and a request for a continuance. The judge says no to the continuance; however, because the judge was not prepared to rule on the motion to dismiss that came in the night before and has not had an opportunity to review the motion or the plaintiff's (my) opposition to the motion there is now another hearing on this set for the future.

I'm quite surprised that Google has fought this much on a small claims case that would have just been under the radar and never known until they started playing lawyer-ball, and in the words of Hank Hill, "don't play lawyer-ball, son."

I'll update if people are interested but wanted to share my story...

I know it can be tempting to use bike paths as extra sidewalk space, especially for runners when the sidewalks are crowded with tourists, but please (I beg of you) to think of bike lanes as an extension of the road. This morning highlighted this for me, so kinda want to discuss it.

On my ride to the office this morning, someone opened the passenger-side door of their car directly into the bike lane without looking. Thankfully, I saw that the door was beginning to open, and though it was extremely close, I managed to slam on my brakes to stop in time void hitting the person coming out of the car. Had I not been specifically looking at the car and instead looking at something ahead of me, I believe I would have failed to stop in time.

Most people wouldn't open a car door into a traffic lane without checking first (unless you're in an Allstate commercial), and the same logic should apply to bike lanes. They may be slower than cars, but they're still traffic lanes. On pedal assist, my bike comfortably cruises at around 15 MPH and around that speed, the combined weight of me and my bike carries about the same energy as a 200-pound object falling roughly 8.5 feet. That's more than enough to seriously injure both the pedestrian and the cyclist.

This isn't just cars, but also pedestrians. I think it's important that if you're walking around someone or running on the bike path (please don't, but if you must), please be just as cognizant to traffic as if you running next to moving traffic. I'll admit, as someone that lived and ran daily in an area that didn't have sidewalks, it can sometimes not be enjoyable but it keeps you safe. Countless times I've come up behind someone wearing headphones who couldn't hear my bell and thus I've had to slow dramatically, impacting the person behind me, and the person behind them. Other times I have had to slam on my brakes because someone suddenly stepped into the bike lane to get around people on the sidewalk. You wouldn't step into a traffic lane without looking first, and the same courtesy should apply to bike paths.

Sorry this became far more longwinded and rantier than I anticipated. I just think that as a community, as much as we hold entitled riders on sidewalks accountable (looking at you Navy Yard, the bike path is literally right next to you!), we should also hold pedestrians accountable for treating bike lanes like extra sidewalk space. It's dangerous for everyone, and I truly don't think anyone would want to harm, be harmed, or see others get harmed due to carelessness.

Edit: Screaming "AI slop" because you think this is a "wall of text" or because it's broken into sections, is hilarious. I work in contracts and this is my writing style. In fact, this required multiple rewrites to get is down from the original over three pages into something more palatable; but by all means please, keep screaming "AI slop." It doesn't diminish the message, and is only done as both a distraction and as a tactic because one is too weak to address the topic at and hand refuse to actually engage. Apologies that my writing style is typically aimed at adults who succeed, not people that haven't touched grass in decades.

---

There's been a lot of justified anger over the LPCAMM2 downgrades, but also a surprising amount of sympathy for Framework. Looking at this from beginning to end, I don't think this was simply an unfortunate market surprise. It looks like a company that knowingly accepted procurement risk, promised customers they wouldn't bear it, and ultimately shifted that risk back onto them.

The Promise

At the Framework Laptop 13 Pro launch event on April 21, 2026, Nirav was asked directly whether pricing would change between ordering today and ordering later. His answer:

>"We want to make sure that if someone's placing an order, that they know that they are actually going to get the configuration they ordered at the price that they ordered it at."

Not just price but also configuration. This was unqualified, with no "subject to supply," no "as inventory allows." It was presented as a commitment to anyone deciding whether to place a deposit.

The Warning

What makes this difficult to reconcile is that Framework has been publicly warning about memory market volatility.

>"We've seen costs stabilize in some areas, but all indications are that this is a temporary reprieve and that we'll continue to see volatility and cost increases through the rest of 2026."

That's Framework's own published assessment that memory market volatility was expected to continue through the rest of 2026, made before Nirav took the stage and promised customers they'd receive the configuration they ordered at the price they ordered it.

Two days ago, with the LPCAMM2 downgrades, Framework admits:

>"Rather than the low-to-mid double digit percentage increase we had forecast from Q2 to Q3 on LPCAMM2 costs, we received prices that are more than double that of the prior inventory we had brought in."

Framework wasn't blindsided by the possibility of rising LPCAMM2 prices; their own words show that they had already forecast increases. The surprise was the magnitude of the risk.

The Failure

Framework didn't sell the 13 Pro through open-ended, continuous ordering. Framework sold preorders in numbered batches. One of the primary purposes of batch ordering is to align known demand with procurement and production. It is reasonable for customers to expect that once a batch is accepted, the company has sufficient visibility into demand to secure the components needed to fulfill those orders.

This RAMpocalypse fallout isn't confined to the last few batches. It has affected customers across the preorder period, including some who ordered when preorders first opened. If Framework's batches reflected procurement commitments, a late-breaking supplier price shock should primarily affect future batches.

No matter how severe the supplier shock became, it should never have retroactively unwound configurations customers had already been promised. If those configurations weren't backed by the components required to fulfill them, what exactly did the batches commit customers to?

The Fallout

Customers who ordered 32GB at $439 aren't just getting downgraded to 16GB at the same price, but in order to get back to the configuration they put a deposit down on now costs $800 or more (depending on region). Framework is charging people extra to restore what their own promise already covered.

Customers can't simply walk away and buy the same configuration elsewhere for what they originally budgeted because memory prices have risen across the industry. Nirav's promise is exactly what kept people from shopping elsewhere while they still could. It also brings into question whether promises like "your batch is locked in" and "you'll get what you ordered" mean anything when a company sells products this way.

The Bigger Issue

Framework publicly acknowledged continued memory volatility, then assured customers that once they placed a preorder, they would receive the configuration they ordered at the price they ordered it for (their exact words). When that known business risk became significantly worse than expected, Framework shifted the consequences of that business decision onto the very customers it had promised to protect from it.

Framework has built its entire brand identity around predictability, transparency, and treating customers like adults who deserve straight answers. That's exactly why this deserves scrutiny instead of a shrug, the standard they're failing to meet is the one they set for themselves.

Personally, I haven't decided what I'll do yet. I was fortunate enough to secure my own 32 GB LPCAMM2 kit from Newegg well below today's market price, so this doesn't affect me financially in the same way it affects many other customers. That doesn't mean I'm ruling out filing a complaint with the DC Office of the Attorney General requesting that it review whether Framework's preorder practices complied with applicable consumer protection laws. Whether anything comes of that is for the OAG to decide.

Framework's handling of these preorders has undermined customer trust in a way that's more damaging than the memory shortage itself.