I didn't reach out to many lawyers. After hearing a few not wanting to be David against Goliath, I just came to terms that I should not be building a business on a revenue stream like Adsense where an automated review can mean the difference between being in business and not, and moved on. I sense you may be implying that maybe I was breaking the TOS, but know that we were getting paid significant amount by Google already, and had no business practice change by the time we were canned at the $100K level.
I didn't reach out to many lawyers. After hearing a few not wanting to be David against Goliath, I just came to terms that I should not be building a business on a revenue stream like Adsense where an automated review can mean the difference between being in business and not, and moved on.
Fair enough. Can't argue against being pragmatic in business.
I sense you may be implying that maybe I was breaking the TOS
No, that wasn't my intent at all. I was just reasoning that if you had a deal with Google where you would normally expect to be paid, they would need some basis for not paying you (or, one would hope, they would lose the case and you'd get your money). They might be unhelpful in terms of not telling you why that is at first, but if you're taking real legal action they can't just say "Not gonna tell ya!" any more (or again, one would hope, they lose the case). If they did come back with something from their terms as their justification, then you would have to see whether those terms stood up in court.
It also looks (from the summary you linked) like the lead plaintiff had somehow admitted to multiple violations of the TOS and failed to follow some sort of required dispute procedure, though, so from what you said before, that doesn't sound like the same situation that you were/are in.
