Ask HN: Shouldn't Google need to give a public statement about Railway incident?
126 points
2 hours ago
| 28 comments
| HN
https://blog.railway.com/p/incident-report-may-19-2026-gcp-account-outage

Everytime I read something like this , I get nervous about the cloud providers and Google. Since this is a relatively high profile customer standards, shouldn't they explain what caused them to suspend the account ?

dang
17 minutes ago
[-]
Related ongoing thread:

Incident Report: May 19, 2026 – GCP Account Suspension - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48204770 - May 2026 (144 comments)

Previously:

Incident Report: Railway Blocked by Google Cloud [resolved] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48201484 - May 2026 (344 comments)

reply
andrewinardeer
29 seconds ago
[-]
> Railway's GCP account manager engaged directly

This would have been an amazing conversation to witness.

reply
ZiiS
1 hour ago
[-]
I really don't see how they can. The business and usage details of their clients are confidential. We have their word that ToS where violated, I don't really think they should say more. This needs to go to arbitration.
reply
noahlt
40 minutes ago
[-]
Is there a statement somewhere from Google saying the ToS was violated? I hadn't seen that and can't find one right now.
reply
ClarityJones
1 hour ago
[-]
Arbitration is an inefficient and unproductive process. I suppose that may be what the parties chose, but the public will likely never know what happened and the problem will be allowed to reoccur again and again. Things like these are better resolved in courts, with res judicata, precedent, and visibility so that legislators can fix statutes where necessary.
reply
esseph
49 minutes ago
[-]
> and the problem will be allowed to reoccur again and again

You're already placing blame here.

We don't know the details other than what Railway has said.

reply
ClarityJones
9 minutes ago
[-]
I think that's true regardless of what happened.

If Railway did something wrong, then letting that be known may help other customers avoid the same ~mistake.

reply
trollbridge
1 hour ago
[-]
There's a reason we used to have courts with public records. Public records and transparency are a good thing. Binding arbitration has destroyed all of that.
reply
zarzavat
42 minutes ago
[-]
GCP is basically just a toy. If you're hosting something important there you should probably not do that. It works as a Plan B, but by no means should Google be your Plan A.

I don't know what happened in this case, there's a chance it wasn't Google's fault but it doesn't matter, Google already lost all benefit of the doubt long ago.

reply
Salgat
39 minutes ago
[-]
Yeah this is the main argument I have for AWS. Is it the best tech-wise? Arguably not, but they have real support you can contact on a moment's notice, they'll even reach out ahead of time if they suspect something is seriously wrong.
reply
ecshafer
16 minutes ago
[-]
Shopify is all on GCP and works well.
reply
zarzavat
20 seconds ago
[-]
Shopify has $11 billion dollars in revenue. I assume that buys them at least an email address of a human at Google.

Nobody doubts Google's engineering ability. It's their soft skills that are lacking. Google is culturally unable to understand the concept of customers.

reply
r_lee
1 hour ago
[-]
I think so. I'm a GCP user and I'm afraid of hosting workloads there now. I've heard too many nightmare stories, and I thought Google would be proper and thus not be infested with these kind of problems that cheaper providers are known for.

Maybe AWS is the only player in town now? I don't know. Google doesn't instill confidence with these incidents, same with those cases of insurmountable bills caused by simple mistakes where there should be a way for smaller customers to cap usage.

reply
graemep
1 hour ago
[-]
> I thought Google would be proper and thus not be infested with these kind of problems that cheaper providers are known for.

These sorts of things have happened before with Google and the other expensive providers.

Are cheaper providers known for doing this? I would have thought they would be less lively to, as they are smaller and therefore every customer is relatively more important to them, and they are therefore more likely to check before turning services off.

reply
antasvara
38 minutes ago
[-]
> Are cheaper providers known for doing this? I would have thought they would be less lively to, as they are smaller and therefore every customer is relatively more important to them, and they are therefore more likely to check before turning services off.

In my experience, the reason they're cheaper is because they offer fewer features (cut down on ongoing expenses) and because they aggressively enforce TOS (the margins are thinner, so you're less able to afford people using more resources than allocated).

reply
okdood64
52 minutes ago
[-]
Would you be okay with GCP making public issues you encounter with your account?
reply
r_lee
49 minutes ago
[-]
if it's some automated behavior, yes. I'd like to know what it is, why it exists, how it works (how to avoid triggering it) and what they're doing to make sure it never happens again
reply
trollbridge
59 minutes ago
[-]
Well, I would host workloads on GCP... provided I could easily move them elsewhere and I just treat them as disposable.
reply
dogscatstrees
1 hour ago
[-]
What about Azure?
reply
oneplane
36 minutes ago
[-]
I'd rather go back to bare metal than use Azure.
reply
skinner927
1 hour ago
[-]
Do you care about uptime and security?
reply
joezydeco
1 hour ago
[-]
reply
joezydeco
1 hour ago
[-]
reply
sergiotapia
22 minutes ago
[-]
I would rather raise goats, than use Azure.
reply
1attice
1 hour ago
[-]
Honestly the best counterattack Iran could make rn would be somehow convincing the Pentagon to move everything to Azure
reply
mxuribe
33 minutes ago
[-]
Your statement was one of those that made me chuckle because it started as a joke...and then reality set in the more i thought about it, and then it made me feel sad, nervous, etc.
reply
lacker
45 minutes ago
[-]
It's an especially awkward situation because Railway is a competitor of Google Cloud, with many third parties involved. So, I just think it will take them a little more time to figure out how to message things.

To me, what it sounds like is that a Google Cloud system identified Railway as a misbehaving customer. Spam, hackers, that sort of thing. Often this happens for "platform as a service" companies, because Railway themselves probably do host some spammers and hackers, and they have their own systems for dealing with it.

So, it's quite possible that according to the Google team, Railway violated the terms of something or other, and according to the Railway team, they did not, and now everyone has to argue about it.

But who knows, this is just me guessing based on some experience running a PaaS that itself was running on top of AWS.

reply
ceejayoz
2 hours ago
[-]
Would you want your vendors publicly disclosing potentially private reasons for an outage?
reply
x0x0
5 minutes ago
[-]
If it were google's bug as Railway has certainly at least insinuated, then yes. I would also be fine with them saying "blah blah blah abuse was detected; we're working through it with our customer and we apologize to those impacted."

I'd also expect a story around how it is this happened w/o a human spending at least an hour working his/her way through a call list to reach someone at Railway. Starting with ops and escalating to the ceo if necessary.

reply
hun3
2 hours ago
[-]
With consent, yes.
reply
ceejayoz
1 hour ago
[-]
Is there any indication Railway has consented to such disclosure?
reply
mlmonkey
1 hour ago
[-]
But Railway has been blaming GCP for the outage. Shouldn't GCP be given an opportunity to defend itself?
reply
SoftTalker
33 minutes ago
[-]
Railway hasn't placed any blame that I've seen. They've posted a timeline of what happened, without any speculation on causes.
reply
ceejayoz
1 hour ago
[-]
Is that what you'd want your vendors to do?
reply
r_lee
1 hour ago
[-]
yes, especially since this didn't seem to be exactly "private" where it was anything specific, it was just some kind of automated system without a human in the loop
reply
ceejayoz
1 hour ago
[-]
But shouldn't that be disclosed to Railway, and not the public? If they had someone running a botnet on compromised accounts there, for example.

If Railway isn't satisfied with the explanation, they're able to say so publicly, yes?

reply
r_lee
1 hour ago
[-]
if it wasn't something specific to their setup, it should be disclosed publicly, because this is a catastrophic incident that makes you think it could happen to you as well, and there's no way to know what could trigger it
reply
ceejayoz
1 hour ago
[-]
> if it wasn't something specific to their setup

They're a web host; it could be any number of plausible mundane things that triggered automated action. This is a big recurring problem for any shared hosting provider.

reply
r_lee
50 minutes ago
[-]
a huge account like theirs should not be subject to automated actions like that.

an entire gcp project deleted along with its persistent disks.

how does that make any sense? nobody thought to call them or anything

reply
ceejayoz
42 minutes ago
[-]
> a huge account like theirs should not be subject to automated actions like that.

No matter how damaging the behavior?

> an entire gcp project deleted along with its persistent disks.

Railway doesn't say that - "persistent disks inaccessible", followed by "persistent disks restored to ready state". It was a suspension, not a wipe.

reply
nickdothutton
1 hour ago
[-]
Google really should publish a flow diagram for how they decide to turn off someone's business.
reply
tardedmeme
20 minutes ago
[-]
It would just be a control flow graph of rand(3)
reply
SamiahAman
11 minutes ago
[-]
No warning, no email, nothing. Just you find out your business is down the same way your users do. Google needs to explain this.
reply
raghavchamadiya
2 hours ago
[-]
This is actually scary. If Google can suspend a company like Railway without warning, what chance does a smaller startup have? The lack of any human escalation path at Google Cloud has been a known problem for years. You'd think enterprise customers paying real money would at least get a phone call before getting shut down
reply
danjl
1 hour ago
[-]
Then you should be scared about every single online account you use, since they all have this same capability of suspension of your account. That's inherent in any service policy.
reply
tardedmeme
19 minutes ago
[-]
Google seems to be the only one that actually does it, regularly, with no warning or comment, to other people. Google also spreads bans to accounts it deems related, so your personal Google account is likely to be deleted at the same time as your GCP account. That includes your Gmail address and your phone login and cloud storage.

And vice versa. Company accounts have been deleted because an employee's personal account tripped Google's random number generator. Again, only Google does this.

reply
pugworthy
39 minutes ago
[-]
> Google Cloud placed Railway’s production account into a suspended status incorrectly, as part of an automated action. This action extended to many accounts within Google Cloud. As this was a platform-wide action, there was no proactive outreach to individual customers prior to the restriction.

I'm interpreting that bit from Railway's blog to mean it wasn't just them that was impacted.

reply
dlcarrier
49 minutes ago
[-]
For privacy, B2B providers often won't even acknowledge that any given company has an account, let alone publish information about that account's standing.
reply
tomComb
1 hour ago
[-]
I can't believe that readers of HN actually think that that is how it does or should work.

Google/GCP can only make very general statements and in this case we want more than that.

They need to tell Railway and Railway needs to tell us, or Railway can tell us that Google is refusing to tell them.

Either way, we need to hear about this from Railway.

reply
fidotron
49 minutes ago
[-]
It's entirely plausible Google won't tell Railway without an NDA to prevent them disclosing exactly what set it all off.

The bigger point though is Google really need to flag any business account as not subject to these suspensions until checked into by several humans. Back when I had a team that used a lot of App Engine they would even call us when we caused all their pagers to go off, and then conspire to keep the lights on while things got fixed. It's sad they have ended up like this.

reply
danesparza
38 minutes ago
[-]
They did:

"We take full responsibility for the architectural decisions that allowed a single upstream provider action to cascade into a platform-wide outage, and detail below what happened, how we recovered, and the changes we are making to prevent this from happening again."

My guess is they will be switching away from Google Cloud. Because anything else would be nuts.

reply
bayindirh
20 minutes ago
[-]
I know hating GCP is hip, but why do only a minority entertains the possibility that Railway did really something off to trigger some alarms?

The calibration of the alarms might be off, and that's acceptable, but in the end if something can be held wrong, somebody will hold it wrong.

I did the same thing in the past, albeit in a much smaller scale. There's no shame in being wrong and admitting as long as it results in progress, so this stance of "we do nothing wrong" from both parties is getting a bit old now.

reply
roxolotl
44 minutes ago
[-]
Of course it doesn’t work this way but why shouldn’t it? It doesn’t because Google is a massive company and could kill dozens of Railways before they notice an issue to their bottom line. However in a world where companies care I’d expect them to make a statement.
reply
michaelbuckbee
32 minutes ago
[-]
I took this a different way which was that to google railway is their customer and out of a variety of professional and security considerations want the communications to come from their customer and not them.
reply
jarym
45 minutes ago
[-]
I think there’s been far too many Google/GCP ‘suspensions with no human in the loop’ that Google does need to put out a statement about their practices.
reply
humanlity
21 minutes ago
[-]
The only way is for PR to think they should open this
reply
pirsquare
1 hour ago
[-]
Being an advocate for GCP all these years, I can only say the earlier you get out of it, the safer it is for your business. All it takes is for their automated system to go haywire, and you can say bye bye to all your goodwill and customers. Go look at twitter how many customers are blaming railway. Founder had history getting screwed by GCP, yet still choose to depend on them.

You can't rely your business on GCP. Honestly, this is the most silly way to kill your own business.

For context, copied from my post 3 years ago.

March 10, 2023 | hide | past | favorite As a 4 years customer, our production severs have been suspended by Google Cloud because we didn't fill up some information on-time. Contacted support but they expect us to wait for 24-48 hours to get it resolved while all our servers are down. Anyone linked with someone powerful in google cloud can help?

======

- Running production on google cloud for 4 yrs with my startup. 100% legit SaaS business.

- Always pay bills on-time no issue. Good customer never open tickets, ask for help or what just quietly pay my bills each month.

- Our servers was abruptly suspended yesterday midnight and my whole business is now down for > 10hrs.

- We run a SaaS business that other ecommerce stores rely on and have hundreds of paying merchants.

- My customers have been grilling me and I don't feel gcloud's trust and safety team understand/care how urgent the issue is.

======

Why were our servers suspended? Because we didn't fill up information in time?

- See https://imgur.com/a/x0Y3RJl

- Apparently they dropped us an email 10 days back that I missed out

- Titled "Important Information Regarding Your Google Account" with no indication of suspension or what in title.

- Given the number of subprocessor "Important" emails they send it's too easy to miss out the email.

- 10 days gone by and our servers were abruptly shutdown with zero suspension notification or what.

- We've been paying $400-$700/mo for the past 4 yrs consistently and they shut us down because we didn't fill up some information?

When I tried to ask them to at least temporarily get our servers back while the verification is ongoing, I didn't get any answers.

Google Cloud have zero empathy for customers.

It's not like my account got suspended for fradulent issue or what. It's suspended because I didn't fill up some information on-time and they don't even allow me to temporarily reactivate my services or what. Especially when I had to wait for hours to get their team to verify my details before I can get my servers back.

You can't trust them with your business. Don't run any production stuffs with Google Cloud, ever.

reply
1970-01-01
33 minutes ago
[-]
Maybe if it was a US Gov site going dark, and Congress got involved. Maybe then. Maybe not.
reply
cortesoft
2 hours ago
[-]
It depends on what you mean by ‘need’. If you mean they should for PR purposes, I probably agree.

If you are saying they should be required to by law, then no I disagree.

reply
RIMR
1 hour ago
[-]
I don't suspect anyone here is demanding laws be written requiring every single player in any SaaS outage to make a public statement immediately following an event like this. That's an odd thing to state your preference on.

But, given that this incident unjustly caused real damages to another company, I am pretty certain that Google will be required to make some sort of response to this, and if it ends up in the courts, it will be public.

reply
farwaabbas
2 hours ago
[-]
Totally agreed the news like this makes me nervous too. For a high profile customer it feels like Google should give a clear explanation of what happened.
reply
esseph
44 minutes ago
[-]
> For a high profile customer

Are they really "high profile"?

I've never heard of them until this incident or maybe the other one with the database.

They just seem... Loud, publicly. And always about failure.

reply
OJFord
20 minutes ago
[-]
In this sort of community, fairly well-known yes.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1779148800&dateRange=custom&...

reply
literallyroy
1 hour ago
[-]
The company I work for uses GCP and we preciously had intermittent CloudSQL connection errors for a few hours. We reached out and they resolved it after a day or so and said there was a minor incident but I don’t think it was ever publically reported.
reply
continueops_com
35 minutes ago
[-]
This makes me so mad, Google is not the first i've seen doing this (AWS, Upwork, Twilio) - and the cheek to say precisely nothing about why. If you're a buyer of cloud services right, i bet old-school on-prem is looking as tempting as an actress to a teenager rn.

Every regulated firm running on GCP is going to spend Monday explaining to their board how their resilience plan accounts for a hyperscaler that operates this opaquely. The compliance paperwork is the easy bit - the honest answer is we trusted that a hyperscaler would behave like a utility and they didn't.

So yes - they owe a statement. The whole point of paying hyperscaler prices is the assumption you won't wake up suspended with no explanation.

reply
qa3-tech
2 hours ago
[-]
Yup, I think so. Makes one think about how dependent we are on cloud infra for core pieces versus supporting pieces of the architecture. They've probably negotiated some kind of private settlement.
reply
whh
2 hours ago
[-]
I've directly asked our account manager about it. It's pretty scary that we don't know what automated mechanisms could just cut us off.
reply
r_lee
1 hour ago
[-]
I really think Google underestimates the damage they've done to their reputation with these. These incidents are rare, but they're common enough where you can't trust them reliably anymore, and if that's the case, why would you pick them over other vendors?

it's not like they're the only provider, or even the #1

reply
esseph
43 minutes ago
[-]
> why would you pick them over other vendors?

Their security track record is pretty exceptional compared to the other two.

reply
iLoveOncall
23 minutes ago
[-]
> Since this is a relatively high profile customer standards

This is a small unknown startup.

reply
LogicCraft678
1 hour ago
[-]
This is exactly why people get nervous about platform risk
reply
gdulli
1 hour ago
[-]
We already know the explanation. It's fundamental to their business model and continued existence to automate everything, false positives be damned, and they don't care about all the people who roll snake eyes on a given day. Because everyone just stays and keeps using them.
reply
PrairieFire
1 hour ago
[-]
Yep. Google doing Google things. Not everyone stays and just keeps using them though, we're actively planning to remove GCP from our primary workloads now and will cut our spend to about 1/10 of current as we keep them in the stack as a cold multi-cloud failover target only.
reply
RickS
1 hour ago
[-]
Google has given a public statement about this category of incident (to wit: cloud provider imperils customer's operations by way of automated decision deliberately designed to withhold recourse).

That statement is the last 15 or so years.

reply
cute_boi
1 hour ago
[-]
Railway can simply move to other service. We all know Google in unreliable, so why should google give public statement?

Thanks.

reply
sergiotapia
34 minutes ago
[-]
I don't understand how you see what Google did to Railway and think you know what I'll build my business on GCP.

#1. you will most likely never be as big a customer as railway. if they did it them, you're fucked.

#2. if shit hits the fan, even a company as large as railway can get no human being on the phone. that's insane.

how is gcp still a thing after this event? if you're in charge of tech at your company, how do you stomach choosing this? how do you defend your choice to your CEO?

reply
tardedmeme
25 minutes ago
[-]
Google is a lawnmower, just like Larry Ellison. You don't expect the lawnmower to give a public statement about why it chopped your hand off.
reply
ChrisArchitect
1 hour ago
[-]
reply