It's also not about suits between individuals. It's employees seeking damages from Google, so there's no third party outside Google and the plaintiff who could be harmed by the switch. And the plaintiff shouldn't be harmed, because removing the requirement for arbitration wouldn't deny it to anyone who wanted it.
As far as "holding Google accountable for prior events under a new rule", that's pretty much what people were asking them to agree to in the first place. But even worse, Google's statement says all future claims - even about past events - will operate under the new rule. So Google is already going to be held accountable for past events under this rule, and this is just disadvantaging the people who already opened claims.
Of course, that's not really what's happening here with Google. What's happening is Google stated that the would not force people into arbitration, but they're still forcing people into arbitration.
But beyond that. It probably is not legally possible.
I wonder what legal standing a private company's "policy" has. Is it written into a contract of some sort, "if you are accused of sexual misconduct, we will follow policy X"? Are all those contracts now being updated?
Realistically, Google can handle this how they want, so I don't see why they can't change how they handle current claims (within reason, of course, I'm sure if your arbitration date is tomorrow, maybe it's bad to change that so suddenly). Of course, Google is going to want to minimize the public knowing about any of these claims, so they'll do what they can to keep it quiet.
I get the feeling that these policies have more value to marketing dept. than the legal dept. After all, there many things that constitute "sexual misconduct" that aren't illegal.
Just because it is called a policy does not mean it can be changed without notice and back dated.
How would you feel if your insurance company retroactively changed their policies on how active auto claims were handed ? Good thing it's not legal for them to do that.
In any case. Google can't always do what the want. The have to follow laws too.
You might be able to void a policy if both the plaintiff and defendant agreed.
I agree. That this is now just a dog and pony show.
Can you unpack who the "they" and the "people" are here a little bit?