"This is a clear violation of the double serving rule."
In my view, things have gotten muddy over the years (but for good reason).
Many years ago, it was enforced to a degree that was way over zealous policing, lifetime bans with no chance to appeal.
Then, they added about four or five rules about pricing, ownership, support, biz model, etc., to make it clear when two different domains were considered to be double / overlapping.
Today, I don't think you can even find a policy or rule called "double serving", but G relies on more broadly defined standards, like transparency and fairness.
See "Unfair Advantage" here:
If you do report a party for doing double serving type activity, G knows that legal arguments could entangle many parties, so they tend to not comment on cases, or follow-up.
I think this can be frustrating, but if you've ever been entangled in any legal cases, like I have, you'll come to see G's treatment as having an upside for you.
I've also been doing this long enough, that when I see true shenanigans going on, I know it won't last forever, even if not enforced (in your view).
People who resort to unfair tactics, usually aren't the competitors to be feared.
This topic can be toxic, so I rarely comment on it, people's ideas of fairness do differ.
And when one is impacted by it, it can feel very weighty.
A broad view, especially on price / service / support / availability / etc, should be taken - if the consumer reasonably feels that two choices are different, chances are very good, that G will conclude the same thing