Why is there a difference between a trial and paid AI Pro even for first-party models?
I bought my Pixel 10 Pro recently with the option of getting a 1-year trial of AI Pro, and it stated that it was the equivlent of $239.88, which was the cost of the AI Pro monthly subscription multiplied by 12. Since I was paying for AI Pro previously, once I got my phone, I canceled my subscription and redeemed my free 12 months.
According to the Google One trial ToS:
This Google One membership offer (“Offer”) provides you with subscription benefits at no charge for a period of 12 months from the day you redeem the Offer (the “Offer Period”).
It’s pretty clear that we are currently not being provided subscription benefits. Isn’t this a textbook example of a bait-and-switch scam?
Taking California as an example, as I (and Google) is based in CA, this is a very clear violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civil Code) §1770(a) as it is:
§1770(a)(5) - Representing that goods or services have characteristics, uses, or benefits that they do not have
§1770(a)(7) - Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade if they are of another
§1770(a)(9) - Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised
It additionally fails to pass California’s False Advertising laws, specifically Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, as it measures how an average consumer would portray the claim of the trial. When the trial was offered, this model segregation was not explained nor shown at all (as it did not exist back then) and still is very hidden underneath the model docs page. Any average consumer would not look up specific Antigravity model limitations inside a very specific page, and therefore buy a $900+ device thinking it would grant them the same exact benefits as the paid Pro plan (which well, that’s what a trial is).
Could I get some information from Google here to explan why exactly there is segregation between paid and trial AI pro plans, when the trial was advertised as a trial (and described in the same cash value)? And doesn’t restricting a plan and calling it a trial not qualify as a trial of said plan?
I know that your response probably will be “you should upgrade to Paid pro”. That is not what I’m asking. I am asking what part of not mentioning this model segregation until after the trial has been started and then adding these restrictions makes sense nor is reasonable?