Regarding this answer: https://law.stackexchange.com/a/16056/10024
Google is not obligated in any way to accept anything into Play, no matter the money or the business involved.
Sure, you can take Google to court for disallowing a product from Play or removing an accepted product from Play. You will need to prove beyond a doubt that the product is does not violate any points in the TOS.
This is wrong two ways.
The second section contradicts the first. Is it true that Google is not obligated? Or can you win a court case against Google by proving that the disallowed product does not violate any points in the TOS?
The stated standard of proof is incorrect. There is no area of law that requires proof "beyond a doubt". In a civil action like this, the standard would be "preponderance of the evidence", also called "more likely than not".
I suggested in a comment changing "beyond a doubt" to "preponderance of the evidence" or "more likely than not".
My suggestion was denied. The reason I was given was that this is not a court room, law class, or conversation between lawyers.
Are these kinds of errors acceptable in answers here?