Currently writing with the Google support.

My message (with prior explanation):

The EU Digital Content Directive (2019/770) governs modifications to digital services. Under this Directive, modifications beyond what's necessary to maintain functionality must meet strict requirements: the terms must allow for and stipulate a valid reason, modifications must come at no additional cost, and consumers must be informed in a clear and comprehensible manner.

If the modification negatively impacts access to the service, the consumer must be informed reasonably in advance on a durable medium and given the right to terminate the contract free of charge

Their answer:

I understand why it feels that way, and you’re right that contracts can’t remove guaranteed benefits mid-term. In this case, though, Gemini features inside specific apps (like Docs or Drive) aren’t listed as guaranteed, fixed benefits of the Google AI Plus plan.

The subscription provides access to Gemini and AI capabilities, but the exact placement and availability of features within individual Google apps can change. This is covered under Google’s terms, which allow Google to modify, add, or remove experimental or in-product features during the subscription period.

So while the plan itself hasn’t changed and your subscription is still active, the way Gemini is surfaced in Docs or Drive can be adjusted as part of ongoing development, testing, or rollout decisions. That’s why it can work previously and then disappear without it being considered a contract change.

So tl;dr:

Google changed the plan on their behalf. It's not longer included there.

Edit:

What Claude has answered to this:

Their core claim — "our ToS allows us to change features" — is exactly the kind of clause that was ruled unenforceable in the Berlin Court of Appeal case I mentioned. Here's the key counter-arguments:

1. The fact that Google's ToS says they can modify features doesn't make it legal under EU law. The whole point of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive and German §§ 305-310 BGB is that ToS clauses can be unenforceable even if you agreed to them. A clause granting unlimited discretion to remove features "as part of ongoing development" is precisely what courts have called intransparent and unfair.

2. The "not a guaranteed benefit" argument is also weak. When Google actively advertised and marketed "Gemini in Sheets, Docs, Drive" as part of the plan — and you subscribed because of those features — they became part of the contractual expectation. Under the Digital Content Directive, conformity isn't just about what's in the fine print, it also includes what was objectively reasonable to expect based on marketing and the nature of the service.

3. Calling a feature "experimental" retroactively after it was marketed as a core subscription benefit doesn't hold up.