German Court: Google Must Stop Ignoring Customer E-mails 290
jfruh writes If you send an email to support-de@google.com, Google's German support address, you'll receive an automatic reply informing you that Google will not respond to or even read your message, due to the large number of emails received at that address. Now a German court has ruled (PDF) that this is an unacceptable response, based on a German law saying that companies must provide a means for customers to communicate with them.
Update: 09/12 15:47 GMT by S : Updated to fix the links.
well done mods. (Score:5, Informative)
Did a mod even check the link to see if it went to what it claimed?
Re:well done mods. (Score:5, Funny)
This is the wrong place to ask those questions... email support@slashdot.org [mailto]
Re:well done mods. (Score:5, Funny)
Go do that; their contact address is support@polizei.de [mailto]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
there haven't been editors around these parts since since VB6 days
The link is incorrect (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The link is incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
Link Wrong? (Score:2)
When I click the link about the ruling I get taken to an article about Wire-Free laptops...
Re: (Score:2)
When I click the link about the ruling I get taken to an article about Wire-Free laptops...
Someone should support the courts technical support. They HAVE to respond after all.
define "customer" (Score:4, Informative)
from what i understand of the definition of "customer", a "customer" means "someone who is paying for a service". here, there's no payment involved, therefore there is no contract of sale. i would imagine that it's fairly safe to say that we're most definitely *not* quotes customers of google quotes.
if on the other hand these individuals are actually _paying_ google for service and are not receiving a response, _then_ i could understand.
Re:define "customer" (Score:4, Insightful)
actually lots of people are google customers in the sense of payimg them money. Google play, etc
Not customers. (Score:2, Informative)
Nope. We are not Google's customers - those are the advertisers.
We are the product.
Re:define "customer" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Would you describe yourself as one of Slashdot's customers?
Re: (Score:2)
Would you describe yourself as one of Slashdot's customers?
Of course I'm one of slashdot's customers. Slashdot would be out of business if we (the customers) stopped coming to their website.
I tend to use the term "user" instead of "customer" but it's the same thing. Slashdot has a business model where instead of charging
their customers $5/month they have found advertisers that are willing to foot the bill in exchange for advertisements but that doesn't
really change who they are providing a service to just who is paying for it.
You are a vendor to slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
Of course I'm one of slashdot's customers. Slashdot would be out of business if we (the customers) stopped coming to their website.
I'm an accountant.
Unless you are sending cash to slashdot, your relationship to them is most accurately described as that of a vendor or a supplier if you prefer that term. You provide data to slashdot in exchange for entertainment which is a form of in-kind exchange. Slashdot then uses that data to sell advertising to their paying customers. From an accounting perspective by providing this forum to you, you would be on slashdot's books as either Cost of Goods Sold or more likely some kind of Operating Expense. This effectively makes you a vendor to them, not a customer because they don't sell you anything.
It can get a little murkier if you have a paid subscription but they still advertise to you because then you become both a customer and a vendor. Which you are depends on the transaction in question. Logically it would make sense to have the subscription be treated as a contra-expense [wikipedia.org] because then you don't have to have this dual relationship. But it's more likely that they would book it as income and have the user on the books as both a customer and (indirectly) as a vendor.
Former /. subscriber here (Score:2)
Users are generally vendors not customers (Score:3)
A customer is someone who receives a service from a company, even if the (monetary) price for that service is zero.
That doesn't make you a customer. That makes you a charity recipient.
In any case the general relationship between Google users (as opposed to paying advertising clients) is that the user is properly thought of as a vendor or supplier. We supply data to Google in exchange for in-kind services (email, search etc) which Google then turns into a product which they sell to their paying customers. Customers are people who pay you and vendors are people you pay. Google "pays" users for their data with online
define (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure they are customers. They are paying with their personal data, which Google hords and then sells to third parties. Without the people who use Google's free services, Google wouldn't earn a cent.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They are paying with their personal data, which Google hoards and then sells to third parties.
Google doesn't sell or otherwise share data with third parties. Google uses it to decide who to show third-party ads to.
Re: (Score:2)
If that were so then Google could just show the ads randomly and besaid third parties had no way of ever finding out about their fraud. But it doesn't work that way. Besides, Google also sells data to the government, e.g. to law enforcement agencies. The average cost of a wiretap in the U.S. in 2012 was $50,452. Google does it for much cheaper.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If that were so then Google could just show the ads randomly and besaid third parties had no way of ever finding out about their fraud.
Not true, for two reasons.
First, advertisers only pay if you click the on the ad. Advertisers can easily verify that the number of clicks Google claims corresponds to the number of hits their web site receives with a Google referral. There's some noise in that measurement, so the correlation isn't perfect, but it would be easy to see if it were systematically off.
Second, Google provides advertisers with extensive tools to help them determine how effective their ads are, or click "conversion rate", which
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they are customers. They are paying with their personal data, which Google hords and then sells to third parties. Without the people who use Google's free services, Google wouldn't earn a cent.
Yeah and, how can that judge claim that German Google customers do not have a way to communicate with Google? German Google customers send mail to support-de@google.com and a Google bot tells them to F*** Off! Not only does that constitute communication but the message is pretty clear. Of course, traditionally it has not proven to be a particularly intelligent strategy to tell the Germans to F*** Off! since they tend to react badly to that (read: Invasions, panzers, stukas, u-boats, V-1 cruise missiles, V-
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah and, how can that judge claim that German Google customers do not have a way to communicate with Google? German Google customers send mail to support-de@google.com and a Google bot tells them to F*** Off! Not only does that constitute communication but the message is pretty clear.
Point is that that's not enough for Google to fulfill their legal obligation. They have to read the emails and (supposedly) react in some meaningful way.
Of course, traditionally it has not proven to be a particularly intelligent strategy to tell the Germans to F*** Off! since they tend to react badly to that (read: Invasions, panzers, stukas, u-boats, V-1 cruise missiles, V-2 rockets... etc) but If Google wants to take a shot at it they I say let them try.
If I look at the last 60 years I come to the conclusion that the US has become the new Germany.
You are a vendor in that transaction (Score:2)
Sure they are customers. They are paying with their personal data, which Google hords and then sells to third parties.
That makes you a vendor/supplier rather than a customer. Google "buys" your data with an in-kind exchange for IT services and then they sell it to advertisers. You aren't a customer, you are a vendor in that transaction chain.
Re: (Score:2)
They're agreeing that Google use their personal data, but there's no suggestion they're going to get paid for it. The "payment" is that Google provide them services, without any support.
And that's the point: German law says that you can not provide a service without a certain amount of support. Google HAS to be available to German customers via email.
Re: (Score:3)
I pay for extended GDrive storage space
Re: (Score:2)
from what i understand of the definition of "customer", a "customer" means "someone who is paying for a service". here, there's no payment involved, therefore there is no contract of sale. i would imagine that it's fairly safe to say that we're most definitely *not* quotes customers of google quotes.
You pay for Google's services with your personal information. And obviously your definition of "customer" doesn't matter. The German court's definition of "Kunde" might.
And I'm quite sure it doesn't refer to customers only but to everyone affected by a business. If I have a business that gets rid of my customers' rubbish by putting it in front of the doors of non-customers, surely these non-customers should be able to contact me?
Re: (Score:3)
from what i understand of the definition of "customer", a "customer" means "someone who is paying for a service". here, there's no payment involved, therefore there is no contract of sale. i would imagine that it's fairly safe to say that we're most definitely *not* quotes customers of google quotes.
if on the other hand these individuals are actually _paying_ google for service and are not receiving a response, _then_ i could understand.
From what I understand, no one actually pays for anything anymore.
No one.
Therefore, you will see this new generation of it-better-be-free demanding new reform to protect what will be known as a "customer", regardless of what you pay.
Believe me, you make perfect sense here. But we don't live in a world that makes sense anymore. We live in a world that makes money. Somehow that is accomplished by giving most services away for free to attract "customers".
definition of "customer" (Score:2)
In many states in the US, all that's required for a "contract" to exist is agreement on actions AND compensation. That compensation does not have to be money; it may be anything of value, including one's attention (as to ads.) Other states do not limit contracts to need compensation at all. I dunno about other nations....
Re:definition of "customer" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:define "customer" (Score:4, Informative)
You don't know that the law according to which Google needs to provide an email address and react to mails to this address in a timely manner, does not restrict in any way this requirement to customers. In Germany any commercial website needs an 'Impressum'. With 'commercial' so loosely defined, that more or less all sites need one. Even those sites, which in theory don't need one, are at a severe legal risk if they don't have one. In short: The law clearly states that the 'impressum' contains an email address you actually read and use. No wriggle space at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like these nations understand the internet quite well. They understand that it's not magic and does not relieve companies of their responsibilities to operate in an accountable manner. "But...we do it the internet!" is not a legal escape clause, as companies like Uber are finally being taught.
Re: (Score:2)
from what i understand of the definition of "customer", a "customer" means "someone who is paying for a service". here, there's no payment involved, therefore there is no contract of sale. i would imagine that it's fairly safe to say that we're most definitely *not* quotes customers of google quotes.
if on the other hand these individuals are actually _paying_ google for service and are not receiving a response, _then_ i could understand.
Google Play Music. $9.99 a month. I'm sure some people, including Germans, pay for it.
Re: (Score:2)
here, there's no payment involved, therefore there is no contract of sale.
Not true - what happens is a 'payment in kind': the customers pay with their use of Google, and by allowing Google to use their data (emails etc), which is why Google is a business, not a charity. Read about it on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org]
Another tip: you can improve the legibility of your postings by using upper case at the beginning of sentences.
Re: (Score:2)
from what i understand of the definition of "customer", a "customer" means "someone who is paying for a service". here, there's no payment involved, therefore there is no contract of sale.
The correct legal term for payment is, "consideration." [wikipedia.org] The user's relationship with Gmail does involve payment in the form of consideration, and they are customers.
As a counter-example; if you download Free Software, or Open Source Software, and use it without making any promises to the developer, you are not a customer.
Vendor not Customer (Score:2)
The user's relationship with Gmail does involve payment in the form of consideration, and they are customers.
That doesn't make them necessarily a customer for that transaction. As far as Google is concerned they are vendors because Google "pays" users via an in-kind exchange of services for data which they then sell to their customers for cash. In that transaction chain the user is properly considered a vendor to Google and that is how they would show up on Google's financial statements. In that transaction Google would be your customer rather than the other way around.
Re:define "customer" (Score:5, Informative)
from what i understand of the definition of "customer", a "customer" means "someone who is paying for a service".
The law isn't even talking about customers. The term is "Verbraucher" which is better translated as consumer.
The judge explicitly stated that the law in question does apply to non-paying users.
Re: (Score:3)
I imagine a law like that did not anticipate a situation where a company of a less than 100K people could have billions of customers. But Google should find a way to respond nonetheless.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that's not how contract laws work. By signing up to a service you're exchanging one thing of value for another. Information is a valid currency.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it includes any individual that Google has data from, as personal data belongs to the person it refers to in Germany. If they were to claim that they do not have a commercial relationship, but do store data (a gmail address is enough), they would act criminally.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you're not paying for the service, you're not a customer.
Google's advertisers and business partners are their customers.
You're not the customer. You're the product.
Re:define "customer" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:define "customer" (Score:4, Interesting)
Good luck trying to contact them as an advertiser too.
Re: (Score:2)
Simply contact the account manager that has been assigned to you. It's no problem at all to contact Google if you're actually bringing in revenue for them.
Re:define "customer" (Score:5, Informative)
Simply contact the account manager that has been assigned to you. It's no problem at all to contact Google if you're actually bringing in revenue for them.
In my experience, it is still a problem. Some years back, I signed up to run some google ads on a few web sites that I was responsible for, added their code to my pages, and got a few hundred dollars a month for the orgs that I was helping run the sites. After a while, I got a notice from google that the sites were violating some unspecified terms in their TOS, and the money stopped. I sent a good number of emails to various google support addresses, asking for details of the claimed violation. I never heard back from anyone at google. So I removed the ads from the sites.
Presumably the small amount they paid these orgs to run their ads was a small portion of what google got from the advertisers. But this apparently didn't justify wasting their people's time explaining to us what we were doing wrong. The wording in their TOS docs were ambiguous enough that, as a programmer, I couldn't figure out what might be wrong, and I couldn't see any way of testing changes to the code to see if I could turn the contract on and off by changing a site's behavior. If their response time has a quantum of a month, it's difficult to test the effect of changes.
We suspected that their problem with us was that we had a rather low click-through rate. The ads I saw were remarkably irrelevant to the topics of the sites, and no amount of playing with keywords changed this by much. Our keywords did work well with google search to direct people to the sites, but this apparently wasn't good enough to also direct the right ads to the sites. Mostly, I just shrugged, and said "So much for google's vaunted targeting of ads".
But our inability to get any response at all from their support people didn't do much to fix whatever they thought the problems might have been.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but unfortunately there is still a lot of "not my department" going on there too. Our company is a large enough advertiser (several thousand a month)
that not only can we call them but they will actually call us if we shut our account off. So if we have a problem directly related to our advertising account
then it is easy to get someone on the phone that attempts to help us. Unfortunately, if we have a problem with gmail, we are still up a creek because they
don't seem to have any ability to either hel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not paying for the service, you're not a customer.
Google's advertisers and business partners are their customers.
You're not the customer. You're the product.
The first half of what you're saying is correct. The second half is the garbage that is repeated here ad infinitum every time there's a story about Facebook or Google.
You see I AM paying Google for the service. Just because it's not cash doesn't mean I'm not paying. I exchange information and statistics for the use of their service. This directly makes me a customer. The fact that they have other b2b customers who further use this information is completely irrelevant.
You are the vendor, not the product (Score:2)
You're not the customer. You're the product.
That's not correct either logically or from an accounting perspective. The opposite of customer is not product. The opposite of customer is vendor. Every transaction has two and only two parties. If you aren't the customer then you are the vendor for that transaction. Unless you plan to go into slavery the product isn't you. The product is data about you. What that makes you is the vendor of the product. Google "buys" this data in exchange for IT services and they then sell the data to advertising c
Re: define "customer" (Score:4, Insightful)
I pay Google in screen space rather than USD, so that still makes me a customer
Says the guy who runs adblock on everything.
Only Flashblock (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who exchanges one thing of value for another can be considered a customer.
No... exchanging one thing of value for another is called being a trading partner; customer/producer means something more specific, and Google/users' relationship is not customer/vendor.
In this case, the user of the service is a supplier of eyeballs, and the only service Google is selling is ad impressions; which are targeted against users utilizing the free service, and Google doesn't need any contract to print ads in
We need more like this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You should ask for your money back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We need more like this (Score:4, Funny)
You should ask for your money back.
You should ask for all your data back.
However, Google has quite a strong monopoly. That will make their case a lot weaker.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
This doesn't reflect my experiences with most companies these days. The problem with Google is they have essentially no real competition so they've no incentive to improve their services.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only difference between Google and most customer service today is that at least Google are honest about it and tell you that you will be ignored. Most other companies will just ignore your email and not tell you or leave you in a call queue for so long that you end up having to hang up and go do something else.
I'd rather Google even be more honest and not even provide a support email at all.
Trying to label a email address with a permanent piss-off-we're-busy auto-response as "support" is like trying to label a mannequin as human. Kinda looks like the real thing, but you're not fooling anyone here.
Re: (Score:2)
Email is required according to the law.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We need more customer protection like this.
This is not customer protection. The users have not in fact brought any custom to google. They're receiving a free good or service and should not be entitled to anything.
Re: (Score:2)
The users have not in fact brought any custom to google. They're receiving a free good or service and should not be entitled to anything.
German law disagrees.
Re: (Score:2)
German law disagrees.
Pardon me if I do not get teary-eyed over the notion of German law.
Re: (Score:2)
German law disagrees.
Pardon me if I do not get teary-eyed over the notion of German law.
Well, since this is about a German court talking about German consumers and (I assume) addressing Google Germany, German law is pretty much all that matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Your attitude does not matter. What matters is that Google could face fines and may, in the ultimate consequence, be forbidden to do any more business in Germany. I am pretty sure they would care about that.
Google should win this if they went to court... (Score:2, Interesting)
...based on a German law saying that companies must provide a means for customers to communicate with them.
Google can argue that they've met the requirements of the law by providing a means for customers to communicate. No where in the law does it require Google to respond.
Since Germany is a democracy, they should change the law to achieve what the state really wants from entities like Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Communication is two way. Monologue is one way.
Re: (Score:2)
Communication is two way. Monologue is one way.
No! Communication *can* be two or one way. It is two way in this case.
...you'll receive an automatic reply informing you that Google will not respond to or even read your message, due to the large number of emails received at that address...
Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Communication is two way. Monologue is one way.
No! Communication *can* be two or one way. It is two way in this case.
...you'll receive an automatic reply informing you that Google will not respond to or even read your message, due to the large number of emails received at that address...
Right?
Oh, please tell me society isn't ready to start labeling some automated fuck-you-very-much-and-have-a-nice-day response as "communication".
Sorry, but I don't consider out-of-office replies or a voicemail recording as "discussion". I've not talked to a person, I've talked to a machine. I have no confirmation that my monologue at that point will ever be seen or heard by another human ever.
Re: (Score:2)
So radio and television isn't communication, according to you.
Good to know.
Re: (Score:3)
Which incidentally the court ruling states. Seems there are still quite a few functionally illiterates on Slashdot.
Re:Google should win this if they went to court... (Score:5, Informative)
No, Google cannot.
Translation:
You can hardly more clear than that. And if Google answers:
Google will not respond to or even read your message
it definitely breaks the law, since this is not even a one sided communication.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it have to be e-mail? Google does provide a feedback mechanism on all of their products (the "Send Feedback" link at the bottom of the page or, in the case of the infinitely-scrolling G+, in the drop-down menu), and while that mechanism doesn't generally provide two-way communication, it definitely is read and taken into account. Sometimes the user does get a response, too, depending on the nature of their question or comment.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but email address is explicitly required. And neither 'fast' nor 'direct' sounds much like "we don't read this address" and possibly not even like: "Nope, please use form 'foo' or call us via 'expensive service number'".
is 'Send Feedback' enough? I as I said: IANAL. My gut feeling? Perhaps for Google. Any
Re: (Score:2)
Google can argue that they've met the requirements of the law by providing a means for customers to communicate. No where in the law does it require Google to respond.
1. You better read the law or a good translation. 2. There's a law in Germany that's not actually written down, but that any sane people obey: "Never tell a judge or a policeman or the inland revenue that you think they are stupid". It's the worst crime you can commit.
Re: (Score:3)
WOW! New all-time record. You didn't even read the TITLE!
What is a customer? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is a web site visitor a customer? Or does some form of payment for services need to be made? What about android users, does having an android device make someone a customer or would google need to sell the OS for that to count?
It sounds like the Judge ruled that any person who uses a google service is a customer even if that service is free. It seems like that is a win for the consumer, but I have to wonder if that was the correct decision in this case. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to need to be a pay
Re: (Score:2)
FTA: " This doesn't mean that every incoming email should now be checked and processed individually by a Google employee, the court said. But the company has to provide the possibility for users to contact it via email, it said. It was left up to Google how to deal with future incoming email."
So it seems to me that the court is not saying every customer email has to be individually checked. Maybe it would be sufficient for someone to have responsibility to look at a sampling of emails to that mailbox, that
Re: (Score:2)
This is pretty harsh for the German legal system, they really must have stepped into it.
Re: (Score:2)
If Google decides to discontinue all Google services in Germany as a result, would that really be a "win" for the German consumer?
More likely outcome is that they change the auto-reply text of the mail to "thank you for your valuable feedback", and then still continue to ignore it. The customer will be none-the-wiser, and unable to prove that feedback gets ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
More likely outcome is that they change the auto-reply text of the mail to "thank you for your valuable feedback", and then still continue to ignore it. The customer will be none-the-wiser, and unable to prove that feedback gets ignored.
The court, not being stupid, will probably send a few "canary" emails. Like an email with the text: "Dear Google. I'm really happy with your search engine. But in order to prove that you are really reading all these emails, please send an email to "JudgeJudy@German.court", telling us the name, address and phone number of the human responding to the mail so we can check it. Not replying to this email will result in a doubling of your fine. "
Re: (Score:2)
The court, not being stupid, will probably send a few "canary" emails.
The court, while certainly not stupid, is very probably lazy. And won't continue bothering google out of its own initiative once a "settlement" is reached.
It will take a continued action by the consumer watchdog organization to keep the court interested, but it's a very fine line to walk between "keeping the court interested" and "not annoy the court by pestering it too much"
Re: (Score:2)
That has been tried. It can have pretty drastic consequences. I guess when the police starts rounding up board members they will reconsider.
Re: (Score:2)
Answers derived from the actual ruling. (Translate yourself if you don't believe me. :P)
Is a web site visitor a customer?
If they used some Google service, then yes.
Or does some form of payment for services need to be made?
No.
What about android users, does having an android device make someone a customer or would google need to sell the OS for that to count?
If it's only about the OS, I think the seller would be the only one the user has a business relationship with. But since almost any Android device includes Google services - yes, I think practically every Android user is a customer of Google in the legal sense.
It sounds like the Judge ruled that any person who uses a google service is a customer even if that service is free.
Yes.
It seems like that is a win for the consumer, but I have to wonder if that was the correct decision in this case. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to need to be a paying customer for a company to expend resources to adequately respond to your communications. Some questions can cause hours of follow up work to send a reply.
If Google decides to discontinue all Google services in Germany as a result, would that really be a "win" for the German consumer?
You are of course free to argue about the merit of the law. But the ruling is "correct" in the legal sense.
Person
Re: (Score:2)
If Google decides to discontinue all Google services in Germany as a result, would that really be a "win" for the German consumer?
It would be a huge for Microsoft and Bing.
But that's only for search. "All services" would be quite fatal for Android phone users, so Apple would be really, really happy. Microsoft as well, I suppose.
The End Result . . . (Score:2)
So instead of being allowed to honestly say "Thanks! But we're going to ignore you" they're simply going to be required to lie to their users and say "Thanks! We might get back to y
Re:The End Result . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
On the surface this sounds like a great decision for the google users in Germany. But do you really think Google is going to change their ways? Or spend one dime to appeal this ruling? Nope! They'll just change their automated reply to "Thank you for your issue/concern. We'll look into it and get back to you if necessary."
If they don't act, they will be fined. However, in Germany being fined doesn't mean you paid for what you are doing wrong, it means the court did something to get your attention. So if after being fined they don't act, the fine will be increased until they act. There isn't really a limit, because not changing their ways tells the court "this fine was so small that we can afford to ignore it, fine us more!".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
solutionn (Score:2)
Google should hire the judge's granddaughter to read and respond to the e-mails.
Why are the customers sending emails? (Score:2)
Excuse me, I am a German (Score:2)
I am mostly pro-Google and against many weirdnesses we have here against companies with our laws. I try to explain what is going on here.
In Germany a company which has a web presence needs to have a so-called "Impressum" with essential business data and a way to contact them in a reasonable time. When there is a phone number, it needs to be answered. Emails need to be answered soon, too, when there is only email address as contact possibility. The impressum is regulated very stricty to prevent fraud and ant
Re: (Score:2)
Since when are assh... erm.... is a Government bound by the same rules as the common rabble?
Re: (Score:2)
The law does not restrict this requirement to customers. You have a commercial website, which targets Germany? You are required to provide contact information and react to it in a timely manner. Customer or not.
Re: (Score:2)
In Germany, you are not allowed to store data from individuals without either a clear waiver (in which case they must be able to communicate with you as it can be withdrawn at any time), or them being your customers, regardless of whether money flows. Providing a service for free also makes them your customers and you must give all your customers a possibility to communicate with you electronically. This is not the US, where data about people belongs to the one holding the data. In Germany it belongs to the
Re: (Score:2)