Paid for Pro, entire weekly quota vaporized by Antigravity 2.0 background agent loops on two basic Unity menus. Support Case ID: 5-7390000041346. Requesting a manual quota reset or refund due to defective service delivery. I have engineered a highly disciplined, token-conscious environment, and the system’s architecture actively failed to respect it.
Case Update / Escalation Note
Regarding Case ID: 5-7390000041346
I want to explicitly add technical evidence demonstrating that this quota exhaustion is due to a failure in Antigravity 2.0’s autonomous orchestration layer, not user prompting behavior.
My project directory contains strict, professional engineering markdown guidelines specifically designed to enforce extreme token discipline. The agent either ignored these directives or Google is scamming consumers:
-
Violation of
AGENTS.md(Section 3): My global orchestration file explicitly commands: “Do not load unrelated rule files to preserve token efficiency.” A simple UI menu change should have strictly isolated context, but the orchestrator recursively pulled unrelated frameworks into the history window while excessively trying to gain access or find ways out of its own ecosystem. -
Violation of
TASK_PROTOCOL.md(Rules 11 & 17): These rules mandate LIMITED MCP INSPECTION (inspecting only specific required files) and TOKEN-EFFICIENT INSPECTION (“Avoid reopening files… already available in context”). Instead of caching or targeting its reads, the agent ran redundant, multi-step background loops reloading the same script structures. -
Violation of
GEMINI.md/TASK_PROTOCOL.md(Diff-First Protocols): My rules strictly enforce DIFF-FIRST OUTPUT and explicitly state “Do not regenerate entire scripts when only partial edits are required.” The agent’s failure to utilize surgical patching multiplied token costs exponentially over a minor, two-page UI layout.
Because my environment was already fully optimized for token conservation, the fact that two standard Unity UI screens consumed an entire week’s professional quota points to a severe defect in how the agent handles context loops and tools. I am requesting a manual reset of my baseline quota pool or a full refund due to a broken service delivery. For senior support tech to brush this off with their usual generic templates, you can clearly see either the agent went rogue against my exact setup or Google cant fulfill its consumer rights obligations for its digital services. Google’s AI Pro service falls directly under Directive (EU) 2019/770, which governs contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services, the EUs consumer protection rules states where a consumer pays a price for a digital service, if it is faulty, fails to meet expectations, or is unfairly altered by the provider then the consumer is entitled to a full refund**.**
Objective Requirements for Conformity (Article 8): A digital service must possess the qualities and performance features—including functionality, accessibility, and continuity—that a consumer could reasonably expect. By advertising a professional tier and then throttling your usage after generating two simple menus, the service lacks the “continuity” and “functionality” required for standard workflows.
Modification of Digital Services (Article 19): This is the most crucial part regarding mid-contract changes. A company cannot unilaterally alter a service in a way that negatively impacts your access or use without a valid reason specified in the contract. If they implement restrictive hidden quotas or shift to a credit overage system that fundamentally degrades the service’s utility, European consumer law grants you the right to terminate the contract.
Remedies for Lack of Conformity or Failure to Supply (Articles 13 & 14): If a company fails to supply the service or it lacks conformity, you are legally entitled to remedies. The consumer has the right to have the service brought into conformity.
I understand my consumer rights regarding unilateral service degradation and the failure to supply a conforming digital service.