How strict is Google with their "Single Purpose" extension policy?

[three30]

I am building an extension that allows users to earn points (in a mechanic similar to Honey or Reklaim) along with interact live with other viewers of the same web pages

Has anyone had experience in rejection or appeals related to "single purpose" policy?

Are there any large chrome extensions that you think push the boundaries on this policy?

https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/single_purpose/

What org unit within Google is responsible for ruling on these policy?

[Cuyler Stuwe]

The rules are incredibly vague, and larger / more popular extensions seem to be able to have the benefit of the doubt / skirt the rules a bit more.

For what it's worth, this tends to be the case with all large company TOS that are written vaguely on purpose. For example, "Camelcamelcamel" has been operating for years in violation of the Amazon Associates TOS by doing affiliate marketing via its "Camelizer" browser extension.

[Simeon Vincent]

How strict is Google with their "Single Purpose" extension policy?

It depends on who you ask. I feel like the way we handle single purpose is generally pretty relaxed, but there are some capabilities that are considered standalone purposes due to abusive patterns we have observed in the wild. For example, replacing the user's default search engine is considered it's own single purpose; if an extension does this, then that's the only thing it can do.

I am building an extension that allows users to earn points (in a mechanic similar to Honey or Reklaim) along with interact live with other viewers of the same web pages

While this strikes me as a bit of an odd combination, I can imagine it being implemented in a compliant way. One concern that does come to mind is related to affiliate marketing. If you do use affiliate programs to monetize, I have a couple recommendations based on personal experience investigating developer appeals. (In other words, this isn't official guidance from Google.)

1. Clearly communicate that you use affiliate marketing in your extension's listing and in the extension itself.

2. Don't hijack existing affiliate links.
3. Provide users with a way to opt out of affiliate marketing. 

What org unit within Google is responsible for ruling on these policy?

I'm not sure why the org matters, but Trust & Safety focuses on user trust and fighting abuse. That said, several different groups work closely together on CWS policy, review, enforcement, and abuse.

Simeon - @dotproto

Chrome Extensions DevRel

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium Extensions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chromium-extens...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/cab5aa92-c76c-4bc3-8bd1-d1f89fe4b88an%40chromium.org.

[Cuyler Stuwe]

Replacing the “new tab page” is also at least implicitly a “single purpose” — the company I’m working with right now wanted to offer a “website launcher” NTP feature for its password manager, but opting out of this NTP behavior on install disabled the entire extension (rather than just its NTP behavior).

The prompt isn’t really intuitive either — It suggests that you’re reverting the NTP only (rather than entirely disabling the extension that implements it). 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/CAFY0HLNTnWCfP33yUZmYS1RiN7ZPvt%3Db%2BWejEsWCgPEdaJL5Cg%40mail.gmail.com.