The Dark Side of AI: Google Cloud’s Bill Shock Accelerator
When Artificial Intelligence in Google Cloud starts billing on its own — a true Bill Shock story. The case of Veo 2 Video Generation gone wrong.
Impossible Google Cloud Bill
This page discusses a case in which a developer received a bill for $850 (approx. 3,400 PLN) from Google Cloud for artificial intelligence services that were never actually used by the user. **Log analysis showed that the activity generating the fees was triggered by an internal Google managed service agent, and not by the developer’s account**. Despite presenting evidence, Google Support deemed the charges valid, leading to **the disabling of all the developer’s account APIs, causing collateral damage, including the blocking of key Google Maps features on the Travelja.eu website**. This situation raises questions about the transparency of usage-based billing in the context of such a large asymmetry of power of the cloud provider.
0 PLN
Charged Fee
For a few hours experiment
0
Video Clips Generated
According to the Google Bill
0 h
Minimum Time Required for Generation
At 1.5 min/video
Listen to the recording about the „Bill Shock”
Source of the recording: travelja.eu
Event Timeline
The timeline below presents the key moments in the case, from the first experiment with the AI service, up to the escalation of the problem and the blocking of services. Understanding the chronology is crucial for assessing the actions of both parties to the dispute.
August 28, 2025
Incident: 1540 Veo 2 requests charged
The user conducts a short, several-hour test of the Veo 2 video generation service, resulting in a fee being charged.
September 2025
Bill received and case reported
Google issues a bill for **3,398.37 PLN**. Correspondence begins with Google Cloud Support to clarify the impossible operations.
October 14, 2025
Google Support maintains the charge
The Google technical support department maintains the charge (citing aggregated data), ignoring requests for source evidence.
End of October 2025
Service blockage and legal escalation
Google suspends other client services (including Maps API) and unilaterally closes the case. The client formally rejects the case closure and prepares an Audit Report.
The Scale Problem: Computational Time vs. Reality
The central point of the dispute is the discrepancy between the billed usage and real technological capabilities. This section visualizes why generating 1,540 video clips within a few hours is impossible. The interactive chart allows comparison of the time required to perform these operations with the typical length of a user session.
Data and Evidence Analysis
In this section, you can review the key evidence in the case. Each tab presents a different aspect: from the official bill, through system logs provided by Google, to the technical analysis that questions their completeness. Switch between views to see what arguments both parties rely on.
Bill Details
The bill issued by Google Cloud clearly shows the item „Veo 2 Video Generation” with a charged quantity of 1,540 units (requests). This is the basic document from which the dispute began. The fee was charged despite the user not having any budget limits set, believing that sporadic tests would not generate significant costs.
SKU: Veo 2 Video Generation
Charged usage: 1,540 requests
Amount: 3,398.37 PLN
Data from Metrics Explorer
Google presents a chart from the Metrics Explorer tool as evidence, which shows 1,540 API calls over a short period. The key problem is that this log is a client-side log and lacks key metadata that could confirm the origin of the requests.
API Method: google.cloud.aiplatform.v1.PredictionService.PredictLongRunning
Number of Requests: 1,540
Missing Data: Full transaction logs, Client IP Addresses, Authentication Context (so-called Proof of Origin).
Without this data, the requests cannot be unequivocally attributed to a specific user or device, suggesting the possibility of a system error (e.g., a server-side looped operation).
Technical Fault and Asymmetry of Power
The serious technical fault involved a **self-triggering billing loop**, where unblocking the credit card automatically renewed the disputed charge and reactivated the internal process generating the charges. Google’s refusal to provide complete server logs (API logs/server logs) prevents the client from proving their innocence, shifting the burden of proof onto the developer. These logs would contain irrefutable evidence, such as the IP address from which each of the 1,540 requests was sent. Without them, Google’s claim is based on incomplete data.
Conclusion: Google has not provided evidence that unequivocally links the user’s computer to the generation of 1,540 paid requests. The available logs only indicate that such a number of operations were recorded in the system, but not who or how they were initiated. This is a classic example of the **asymmetry of power** problem in the cloud, where the provider controls the evidence crucial to the dispute.
FORENSIC AND TECHNICAL AUDIT REPORT
Subject of the audit: Analysis of undue fees for the Veo 2 video generation service (Vertex Al). Date of incident: August 28, 2025. Date of report: October 19, 2025.
I. SUMMARY AND CONTEXT OF THE DISPUTE
The Veo 2 service (Vertex Al) is an advanced AI tool for video generation, billed for each initiated generation request (PredictLong Running). The dispute concerns a fee of **3,398.37 PLN for 1,540 units** of Veo 2 service usage, charged within a single day (August 28, 2025). The client categorically denies initiating these transactions.
Key audit findings indicate that the charge was triggered by an **internal Google managed service agent**, and not by the developer’s account. Despite the evidence, Google deemed the charges valid, leading to the disabling of the developer’s account for all APIs, causing collateral damage.
II. AUDIT METHODOLOGY AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION TIMELINE
II.A. Audit Methodology and Limitations
Report is based on technical-financial analysis, applying principles of **forensic accounting**. It relied on: **Google Cloud billing exports**, **client audit logs**, and **fragments of system logs** provided by Google.
Main Evidentiary Limitation:
The most important element of the audit is the **lack of access to full API logs** for the disputed method `PredictLongRunning` and the **lack of authentication context** for the requests (e.g., IP addresses, API keys/tokens). This is a gap that Google, despite requests, consistently maintains, preventing verification of responsibility and ultimate proof of a system error.
III. TECHNICAL ANALYSIS: PROOF OF ORIGIN GAP
Log analysis revealed a **critical evidentiary flaw**: Google did not provide complete transaction logs, client IP addresses, or authentication context (API key/user ID). The absence of these logs technically prevents proving that the client is responsible for the fees.
The Google system activity log confirms that the Actor: is an **internal Google system account** (gcp-sa-aiplatform.iam.gserviceaccount.com). This means autonomous Google system activity in the client’s project, potentially independent of the client’s initiative.
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Clear conclusion: The fees result from autonomous, internal activity of the Google Service Agent. Refusal to provide source logs prevents verification of alternative client error scenarios.
Recommended Steps:
- IMMEDIATE FEE CANCELLATION: Demand the refund of **3398.37 PLN** and restoration of full account functionality.
- REGULATORY ESCALATION: In case of refusal, file an official notification to the **UOKiK** (Polish consumer authority) and the **European Consumer Centre (ECC)**, citing violation of the EU Data Protection Act (Regulation 2023/2854).
Legal and Systemic Context
This case is not an isolated incident. It fits into the broader context of problems with unexpected bills („Bill Shock”) in cloud services. Additionally, the actions taken by Google during the dispute may violate consumer rights valid in the European Union. This section sheds light on these aspects.
The „Bill Shock” Problem
The incident from August 2025 is part of a documented, systemic billing failure in Google AI services that has affected many users. Lack of transparency and default protection mechanisms expose users to uncontrolled costs.
Violation of the EU Data Act
Refusal to provide complete server logs, which are machine-generated data, may violate the client’s right to data access, guaranteed by the European Union’s Data Act (Regulation 2023/2854).
Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD)
Suspension of services unrelated to the dispute (e.g., Google Maps API) to force payment of a disputed bill may be considered an aggressive commercial practice, inconsistent with the UCPD directive. **As a result, the Travelja.eu travel website lost basic functionality. The route calculator (travelja.eu/obliczanie-trasy/) stopped displaying fuel consumption and distances, and maps on the classifieds page (travelja.eu/ogloszenia/) are completely unavailable.**
Final Conclusions
The case reveals systemic loopholes in the Google Cloud billing system and problems with transparency. Lack of access to full data and the use of pressure on clients questions the fairness of the company’s practices.
Plan Your Trip with Travelja.eu
Use our tools: cost calculators, tickets, accommodation, carpooling. Join our community!
Source: Travelja.eu – plan smart, travel cheap.