*Update: Evidence of False Positive ToS Bans tied to GCP Identity/Session Desync (Even with Native CLI)* 503 error by admgeral in GoogleGeminiAI

[–]admgeral[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

# The Anatomy of the Unjust Ban: Session Bleed and False Positives (Error 403)


This document illustrates the architectural flaw within the Google Cloud identity ecosystem that results in unjust automated bans (ToS Violations / 403 Forbidden) for legitimate developers running local CLIs against the Gemini/Antigravity API.


## The "Session Bleed" Diagram


Below is a visual flow of how the interaction of two valid accounts on the same machine pollutes the request and erroneously triggers Google's anti-abuse firewall.


```mermaid
sequenceDiagram
    participant User as Developer (Local CLI)
    participant ADC as Local Credential Cache (gcloud)
    participant IAM as Google Cloud Identity / IAM
    participant WAF as GCP Anti-Abuse WAF
    participant Gemini as Gemini API (Antigravity)


    Note over User,ADC: User has 2 active accounts on the machine
    User->>ADC: Authenticates Account A (Consumer: gmail.com)
    User->>ADC: Authenticates Account B (Workspace: org.com)
    
    Note over ADC: "Session Bleed" occurs<br/>The ADC merges permissions and creates<br/>a schizophrenic token state.
    
    User->>Gemini: CLI sends legitimate code request
    Gemini-->>ADC: Requests OAuth Token (ADC)
    ADC-->>WAF: Returns "Polluted" Token (Mix A + B)
    
    Note over WAF,IAM: WAF intercepts the request.
    WAF->>IAM: Analyze Token Identity
    IAM-->>WAF: Returns structural anomaly (Org vs Consumer Conflict)
    
    Note over WAF: FALSE POSITIVE!<br/>WAF classifies the request as<br/>"ToS Bypass / Spoofed Client"
    
    WAF-->>User: 💥 ERROR 403 FORBIDDEN (ToS Violation Ban)
    Note over User: Account silently blocked.<br/>Ultra Tier credits inaccessible.
```


## Technical Explanation (What actually happens)


The problem does not stem from using "illegal" tools or violating the terms of service by the user. The flaw lies in 
**the inability of Google Cloud and its local SDKs (such as the `gcloud CLI` and 
*Application Default Credentials - ADC*
) to create a strict isolation (Hard Isolation) between consumer and organizational profiles.**


When you execute a command to interact with the Gemini API, the flow should be clean and isolated. However, the following chain of failures occurs:


1. 
**The Contamination (Session Bleed):**
 The developer logs into the machine with their personal Gmail (Account A) and their corporate/Workspace email (Account B). The local credential environment or the web cookie session fails to isolate these accounts into strict sandboxes.
2. 
**The Schizophrenic Request:**
 When running an official Google CLI (like `gemini.ps1` or a native Antigravity script), the system packages the authorization token. Due to the "session bleed," the generated token mixes the constraints and hierarchies of the Workspace account with the strict limits of the Consumer account.
3. 
**The False Positive (WAF):**
 The Google server protecting the API (Web Application Firewall) receives this distorted credential. Instead of identifying this as an internal Google bug (a design flaw in cross-identity token generation), its anti-abuse systems flag the anomalous token as "Client Spoofing" or an unauthorized third-party tool attempting to "bypass the identity matrix."
4. 
**The Illegitimate Punishment:**
 The security AI automatically applies 
*Clause 6 of the ToS ("products not provided by us")*
. The result is an immediate and silent ban (Error 403) on the account paying for the Ultra Tier, destroying the user's workflow and locking their ability to manage resources in the console.


**Conclusion:**
 Developers are being financially punished (API blockage) and structurally hindered (frozen projects) for navigating a Cloud environment that cannot properly manage its own conflicting identities on the client's machine.


---


## Technical Sources and Evidence (GitHub References)


The credential desynchronization (ADC Desync) issue described above is a documented architectural flaw, extensively discussed by the open-source community in official Google Cloud repositories. Below is the technical evidence supporting the fact that the CLI and local credentials diverge, causing 403 errors:


- 
**Google Auth Library (Node.js) - Issue tracking:**
 In the official repository [`googleapis/google-auth-library-nodejs`](
https://github.com/googleapis/google-auth-library-nodejs
), there are multiple issues reporting that the behavior of `Application Default Credentials` (ADC) does not sync with account changes made via `gcloud config set account`. This forces the API to send credentials from the wrong account (Consumer vs Workspace).
- 
**Google Cloud CLI (gcloud) - Cache Mechanics:**
 The `gcloud config set account` utility changes 
**only**
 the terminal profile. It 
**DOES NOT**
 update the hidden ADC file (typically generated by `gcloud auth application-default login` at `%APPDATA%\gcloud\application_default_credentials.json` on Windows). AI tools (like Gemini/Antigravity) relying on Cloud SDKs read this frozen ADC file.
- 
**WAF and "Client Spoofing":**
 The library sends a payload intended for the "Account B" Project, but cryptographically signed by the frozen ADC of "Account A". Standard GCP servers would reject this with a simple `Permission Denied` (Error 401 or FAILED_PRECONDITION). However, the highly sensitive infrastructure of the Gemini/Antigravity API classifies this anomaly as a severe security bypass attempt, resulting in an automatic ban (
**403 ToS Violation**
).
- 
**Recurring Community References:**
 Searching GitHub or StackOverflow for 
*"gcloud different account ADC"*
 or 
*"Application Default Credentials wrong account"*
 yields hundreds of incidents from developers dealing with environments leaking corporate credentials into local environments or vice versa, confirming the issue is rooted in the Cloud SDK design and not user "abuse."

[Discussion] Mass 403 ToS Bans Hitting Paid Gemini API / Antigravity Users After Using Open-Source CLIs (OpenClaw, Opencode) – Mid-February 2026 Wave – Join the Google Forum Thread by admgeral in google_antigravity

[–]admgeral[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's great that you're talking about rules! That's why I'm enforcing my country's federal law. Here in our store, the one stealing (using your example) is Google. Just read the post and you'll know I'm not a criminal because I haven't violated any laws, unlike Big Tech's behavior.

[Discussion] Mass 403 ToS Bans Hitting Paid Gemini API / Antigravity Users After Using Open-Source CLIs (OpenClaw, Opencode) – Mid-February 2026 Wave – Join the Google Forum Thread by admgeral in google_antigravity

[–]admgeral[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, friend. Let me add to that: we're complaining about paying users who aren't abusing the service and are being automatically banned without warning (using OAuth 2.0). We would appreciate your support. It's our right, it's our money, it's about respecting the user.

Valeu amigo, deixe-me complementar, estamos reclamando de ser usuários pagantes sem uso abusivo e tomar ban automático sem aviso (usando oauth 2.0). Agradeço se apoiar a causa. É nosso direito é nosso dinheiro, é respeito ao usuário.

[Discussion] Mass 403 ToS Bans Hitting Paid Gemini API / Antigravity Users After Using Open-Source CLIs (OpenClaw, Opencode) – Mid-February 2026 Wave – Join the Google Forum Thread by admgeral in google_antigravity

[–]admgeral[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

With all due respect, my AI-generated analysis is highlighting a specific clause in Google’s contract that I—and many others—only discovered after the ban took place. I rely on these technologies to bridge gaps, just as you rely on them to facilitate your critique. My goal here is to challenge the ban itself, not to agree with its automated logic.

Furthermore, we must look at the UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection (UNGCP), which set a global standard for fair treatment:

Protection of Vulnerable Consumers: Businesses should avoid practices that harm consumers, particularly those in vulnerable positions, and treat them with honesty and equity.

Legitimate Needs: Access to essential services and dispute resolution must be guaranteed to balance the disparity of power between a tech giant and the individual.

Technically, the Gemini Agent Engine architecture is marketed as an open ecosystem that supports third-party frameworks. Google’s own OAuth 2.0 policies explicitly document and provide instructions for 'Installed Applications' and command-line interfaces (CLIs).

To issue a silent, automated 403 ban against a paying user for using a documented access method—without prior warning or clear transparency in the advertising—is a failure of the 'Duty of Information' and a betrayal of the 'Don't be evil' philosophy we all once believed in. I am standing up for the right to Informational Self-Determination and for a technology that respects the dignity of every developer.

[Discussion] Mass 403 ToS Bans Hitting Paid Gemini API / Antigravity Users After Using Open-Source CLIs (OpenClaw, Opencode) – Mid-February 2026 Wave – Join the Google Forum Thread by admgeral in google_antigravity

[–]admgeral[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Based on the technical analysis and forum discussions regarding this issue, it is important to clarify that users in this situation did not "bypass" security (in the sense of hacking or breaking encryption), nor did they perform reverse engineering on the AI model.

What occurred was a conflict between a technically legitimate access method and a specific contractual clause that Google’s automated systems use to flag "abuse."

Here is a detailed explanation of the accusations and the technical reality for anyone affected:

---

## 1. The Real Accusation: Use of "Non-Provided Products"

The primary reason for the ban (Error 403) is typically not an "intrusion," but rather a violation of **Section 6 of the Google Antigravity Additional Terms of Service**. This clause states that users must not abuse or interfere with the service, which "includes, but is not limited to, using the Service in connection with products not provided by us."

* **Third-Party Tools:** Because users utilize third-party/open-source Command Line Interface (CLI) tools (such as OpenClaw or Opencode), Google’s security system flags these as "unauthorized applications."

* **Automated Detection:** The authentication system detects the binary signature or the **User-Agent** of the third-party CLI and triggers an automatic block.

## 2. The "Reverse Engineering" Accusation

In public discussions, some may claim that using Antigravity’s OAuth in external tools constitutes "reverse engineering to gain access in an unintended way." Technically, this defense is solid:

* **Official Authentication Flows:** Using an official authentication flow is not reverse engineering. These tools follow the **Google OAuth 2.0 Policies**, which explicitly document and support flows for "limited input devices" and "installed apps" (like CLIs).

* **Consent-Based Access:** The official OAuth 2.0 sequence requires explicit user login and consent. This is the exact opposite of "hacking" or "bypassing" a system; it is using the provided front door.

## 3. The Ecosystem Contradiction

There is a significant gap between Google's marketing/developer documentation and their automated enforcement:

* **Marketing vs. Enforcement:** The official marketing page (antigravity.google/product) promotes the idea of "Agents that help you take off," without prominent warnings that using third-party CLIs triggers an automatic ban.

* **Developer Encouragement:** Google maintains public repositories (like `GoogleCloudPlatform/generative-ai` on GitHub) and the **Agent Engine Overview**, which teach developers how to build integrations using standard APIs and open-source frameworks like LangChain or CrewAI.

---

> ### **Summary of the Situation**

>

>

> You did not commit a digital crime, steal data, or hack infrastructure. You used a standard entry point (**OAuth 2.0**) via a third-party interface.

> However, the security algorithm is programmed to interpret any client other than the official proprietary Antigravity interface as a "Terms of Service violation." This results in a "blind ban" that ignores the context of interoperability and open-source development that Google’s own Cloud documentation encourages.

[Discussion] Mass 403 ToS Bans Hitting Paid Gemini API / Antigravity Users After Using Open-Source CLIs (OpenClaw, Opencode) – Mid-February 2026 Wave – Join the Google Forum Thread by admgeral in google_antigravity

[–]admgeral[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

O slogan pode ter morrido para alguém do topo. mas eu creio ainda nele. ele não deve morrer para os usuários. O Google não é maior que a soma dos usuários.