> he's being banned for having hired someone else who later broke those rules
FWIW: there's some reason to suspect that the "later" bit is being spun here. Per the timeline in the article, there were only 5-6 weeks between the employee being fired and Google taking action against the employer[1].
That's pretty tight, and from an enforcement perspective is going to make it extremely difficult to distinguish which entity is doing the bad things. And, frankly, given the spin elsewhere in the story, I'm inclined to suspect more ambiguity here and not less.
What's the ask here, that Google (which correctly detected the association between the accounts) audit the IT permissions logs of accounts that commit bannable offenses before taking action? That just doesn't seem feasible.
[1] They further spin this by trying to claim that the employee left in 2019, but have to admit that he was still present as a consultant.
Mar 2019 - H. Left the company, all permissions removed except on one game which we were still using H.'s consultation on - The app was unpublished later on
04 Dec 2021 - Termination of H. (Former Employee) account because of multiple policy violations
26 Jan 2022 - Termination of our company account (Raya Games Ltd - AKA TOD Studio) without prior notices and warnings
I think the 04 Dec 2021 is Google's termination of the "H" account.
FWIW: there's some reason to suspect that the "later" bit is being spun here. Per the timeline in the article, there were only 5-6 weeks between the employee being fired and Google taking action against the employer[1].
That's pretty tight, and from an enforcement perspective is going to make it extremely difficult to distinguish which entity is doing the bad things. And, frankly, given the spin elsewhere in the story, I'm inclined to suspect more ambiguity here and not less.
What's the ask here, that Google (which correctly detected the association between the accounts) audit the IT permissions logs of accounts that commit bannable offenses before taking action? That just doesn't seem feasible.
[1] They further spin this by trying to claim that the employee left in 2019, but have to admit that he was still present as a consultant.