The moderators on this forum are Google employees acting on behalf of the company. This is not an assumption but a verifiable fact: the official moderator list shows their names, roles and the “Google” affiliation next to them.
Because of this, when a moderator opens, views, flags or interacts with a post, it legally counts as the company becoming aware of the information. In law, it does not matter which channel the information arrives through. What matters is whether a representative of the organization has seen it. If they have, the organization is considered informed.
This means the following:
-
Google cannot claim they “did not know” about the facts described in the post
-
Google cannot claim they “did not receive” the information
-
Google cannot claim they “never saw” the report
because the moderator’s activity is documented and time‑stamped.
The forum is not an official complaint channel, so Google has no obligation to respond here. However, the lack of obligation to reply does not change the fact that knowledge has been obtained. From the moment a moderator sees the content, the company is legally considered aware of it.
The moderator view, the moderator list, the timestamps and the archived snapshots together form a complete and verifiable evidence chain showing that Google has been informed of the issue.
All my posts can be found here:
I created this post because the issues I reported are not simple feedback or random comments. They involve concrete problems related to user data, privacy, system behavior and potential data‑handling failures. When a company becomes aware of a possible data‑related issue, they are not free to ignore it. Under GDPR and general legal standards, they are required to assess, investigate and, if necessary, respond. This obligation begins the moment the company becomes aware of the issue.
On this forum, the moderators are not anonymous volunteers. They are Google employees acting on behalf of the company, which is clearly shown on the official moderator list. When a moderator opens a post, reads it, flags it or interacts with it in any way, it legally means that Google has become aware of the content. Organizational knowledge works like this: if a representative sees it, the organization sees it. Because of this, the moment a moderator viewed my posts, Google became aware of the issues I reported.
I created this post to document this fact in a clear, traceable and verifiable way. The moderator view, the timestamps, the archived snapshots and the official moderator list together form a complete chain of evidence. This makes it impossible for the company to later claim that they “did not know,” “did not receive,” or “never saw” the information. They did. Their own moderator saw it.
This post is not about demanding a reply on the forum. It is about establishing that the company has already reached the point where a response is legally required. Once they are aware of a potential data‑handling issue, they have obligations under GDPR and their own internal compliance rules. Whether they choose to respond here or through another channel is their decision, but the responsibility to act already exists.
