Google Gemini CLI Updates ToS Enforcement and Restores Banned Accounts

Google has announced a system-wide unban for Gemini CLI users who were recently blocked for violating Antigravity Terms of Service. A new self-service reinstatement process will allow first-time offenders to regain access by recertifying their compliance with usage policies. However, the company maintains a strict stance against using third-party tools to bypass quotas, warning that a second violation will result in a permanent ban.

Key Points

• Recent account bans were caused by users using third-party tools or proxies to access Antigravity resources and quotas in violation of the ToS.
• Google is conducting a one-time, system-wide automated unban to restore access to affected accounts within a few days.
• A new self-service process allows first-time offenders to be automatically reinstated after reviewing the ToS and submitting a recertification form.
• The policy follows a 'two-strike' rule where a second violation of the ToS will lead to a permanent account ban.
• The maintainer explicitly clarified that using unauthorized tools to harvest or piggyback on Gemini CLI's OAuth authentication is prohibited.

Sentiment

The discussion is broadly skeptical of Google's enforcement methods, even among those who accept that the underlying ToS violations were real. The dominant emotional tenor is anxiety about Gmail lock-in and Google's historical pattern of poor customer support with no meaningful human appeals. Hacker News largely disagrees with how Google handled the enforcement, though a meaningful minority acknowledge the policy violation was genuine.

In Agreement

• Users clearly violated ToS by extracting OAuth tokens and routing through third-party proxies to bypass quota limits on a heavily discounted subscription tier
• At scale, automated enforcement is the only practical approach; Google cannot manually review every violation
• Google's new self-service reinstatement process, while imperfect, is a reasonable step that provides more recourse than silent permanent bans
• Subscription pricing for Gemini CLI depends on quota controls — allowing proxy abuse would make the model economically unsustainable

Opposed

• Google should have sent warnings before banning paying customers, especially for first offenses — no prior notice was given
• Headless CLI mode is documented and supported for automation, making it unclear how programmatic use crosses into unauthorized territory
• The self-service reinstatement form lacks human review and creates a hair-trigger situation where a second violation means permanent loss of service
• Banning users from using their subscription-based service with third-party clients is anticompetitive and limits legitimate user choice
• The episode reinforces how dangerous it is to link critical infrastructure like Gmail to Google's broader ecosystem given the lack of any meaningful appeals process