Yeah there is no excuse for Google not to make an exception to the policy when Google told the poster to do the chargeback.
This is the inevitable result of automation. There is no negotiating with a piece of code.
It’s not inevitable. Of course it can be overridden.
But by who? There’s nobody to hire for that role, because the role has been automated.
I have no idea if you're being serious, but of course code can be overridden and of course you can hire someone to override it. Google has apparently chosen not to.
Hiring someone to do a thing is the opposite of automating it.
I think the chargeback here was a personal "go f yourself" move from the supervisor to a "troublesome" client, not Google.
If the customer was told to do a chargeback by a Google employee (or outsourced contractor) then it was _Google_ who told the customer to do the chargeback.
Every action by myself acting in my official capacity is an action by my company and they cannot disentangle themselves from that obligation by blaming an employee.
Google logs everything about everyone, but somehow doesn't have a record of themselves telling the user to do something.
Man it sure is a great gig being google!
That's definitely a problem. But a lot of people seem surprised that issuing a chargeback can result in a loss of access to company services. So was just sharing from my work experience.