[BobCat]

Non-lawyer here: one reason corporations won't give you info about exactly what they think you did wrong is it gives you no grounds to sue them for slander.

Similarly, no HR department will inform another HR department if you were fired or why, they'll only confirm dates of employment.

[mlyle]

> Non-lawyer here: one reason corporations won't give you info about exactly what they think you did wrong is it gives you no grounds to sue them for slander.

Telling you something that they think about you, without witnesses, is not slander.

e.g.

> Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

> A false and defamatory statement concerning another;

> The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);

> If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and

> Damage to the plaintiff [from the statement itself].

https://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation...

------

IMO, there's two reasons why they won't tell you why you're suspended:

* It may help bad actors figure out how to circumvent the system (but, trust me, they already know!)

* It may reveal their own wrongdoing.

[hedora]

I can imagine someone arguing that Google's fraud department defamed them, causing another department (the third party) to take actions that damaged the plaintiff. "unprivileged" might be hard to argue though.

[fallingknife]

If Google says "we suspended your account because you did x, y, and z, which caused us to suspect that you are committing fraud" that is not slander, unless you can prove that they didn't actually think so, which is impossible.