Nobody demands that even a single mail must be replied to.
Do the people who make such outraged, generalised and sweeping statements online think of the consequences, i.e. that they look foolish?
back
4 comments
Page 11 of the ruling:
"Es kann auch hiernach nicht Aufgabe des TMG sein, eine Antwort oder eine bestimmte Qualität der Antwort zu erzwingen. Es genügt die abstrakte Möglichkeit, dass Kommunikation aufgenommen wird, eine Reaktion erfolgt. Auch ein Nichtantworten kann eine Reaktion sein. Wenn aber Nichtantworten Prinzip ist, kann nicht mehr von Kommunikation die Rede sein."
translated by me:
"Hereafter it cannot be the function of the TMG to force a reply or a certain quality of the reply. The abstract possibility that communication is started, a reaction happens, suffices. A nonreply can be a reaction, as well. But if not replying is the principle, one cannot speak of communication anymore."
That was exactly my reading, thank you for the translation.
The 'categoric rejection' was the problem, not the lack of a specific answer.
> Nobody demands that even a single mail must be replied to.
That is ostensibly the case, it's just that it doesn't fit very well with the fact that Google was just ruled against for doing exactly that: Not responding to even a single email.
What, exactly, is the expectation here? Is it better that Google leaves people looking for help hanging in the dark, rather than auto responding with pointers to self-help?
I got from it that the sticking point was that they did not even bother to read the mail in principle, not even that they did not respond. The German in the ruling is quite complex though, so I'd better leave such analysis to someone who is a native speaker.
My reading is that it is all about 'establishing contact' and not necessarily about receiving an email answer.
http://www.vzbv.de/cps/rde/xbcr/vzbv/google-lg_berlin-2014-0...
Page 4 at the bottom.
"Es muesse fuer den Verbracher moeglich sein, den Dienstenanbieter auch ohne vorheriges Ausfuellen eines Formulrs zu kontaktieren."
Freely translated:
"It must be possible for the user, to contact the party offering a service without prior filling out of a form."
If you define google customer by google user, then yes, they kind of have to.
The idea here is to stay within what the court documents actually say otherwise this is just fantasy. The document does not define that every user has to be answered. In fact it makes it explicit that not an answer is a kind of answer too but that categoric rejection of the possibility of such an answer for technical reasons is not good enough.
In other words: If you have a business address then you should at least look at / read your mail. Responding is optional.
No, they just wanted to make a knee jerk anti-regulation sentiment.