Your new assertion about cost as a verb is also not on point, because (1) as I explained, there is absolutely zero loss of revenue here, and (2) even if you view it as "the failure to gain/win something", my posts make clear that it is the inane ads, rather than the ad blocker, causing this failure.
Believing otherwise is to think it's a cost to the farmer on the side of the road every time I drive by his truck without stopping to buy vegetables.
If that's lost revenue, they the publisher is the one who lost it and it is up to them to find it again.
Hint: the solution is not technical.
It may be silly of the French, but it is within their rights to tell google to leave the country or abide by the rules.
Nothing to see here. Move along. Don't feed the samzentroll.
She settled out-of-court for an undisclosed amount (she probably didn't have to pay them for all the defamation she threw their way), and life goes on.
One case of unknown outcome 13 years ago in an area that would seem, on the surface, to be ripe for litigation, doesn't seem any more of a cautionary tale than any other hazard of going into business -- obviously companies want to do a good job on their TOS, but missing email just doesn't really seem to be an issue.
For example, there's nothing on wikipedia's email page or "online service provider law" pages about this, so, no, I'm still not convinced it would be a huge deal to tell people that you're dumping spam, and then dump spam.
Were there fewer fools, knaves would starve. - Anonymous