Deceptive Installation Tactics clarifications

[Armand Taled]

Hello,
my extension has been the victim of a take down for Deceptive Installation Tactics (Red Zinc).
I have appealed as i believe to have done everything possible to be compliant but i reach to the community for feedback so that it never happens again.

About this https://developer.chrome.com/docs/webstore/program-policies/deceptive-installation-tactics/ i need clarification :

1. Unclear or inconspicuous disclosures on marketing collateral preceding the Chrome Web Store product listing.
2. 
   

3. Misleading interactive elements as part of your distribution flow. This includes misleading call-to-action buttons or forms that imply an outcome other than the installation of an extension.

About these points, my understanding is that its ONLY about the page preceding the CWS product page.

In my case i buy some advertising on adnetworks that send traffic to my landing pages. A lot of it is pop ups or push notifications, my landing pages are compliant imo, but i have no control in the pages or push notifications that precedes my landing. The typical case is someone is trying to download a torrent, clicks on a download button and gets a popup that advertise my extension. My landing page is not making any promisse to trigger a download or deliver a torrent. So i wonder if the policy applies to multiple levels of clicks, which would be completely out of control.

Now if that's not the case, i can only assume my landing pages are not compliant and i fail to see why, which is why i humbly request your help in identifying the flaws :

For the context, its a Popup ad blocker extension. My take is that my pages are compliant because :

- The most prominent element of the page is always the name of the extension
- The features are clearly described and its clearly stated that its a Chrome Browser extension.
- There is no hint or mention that the installation of the extension is a requisite to get something else (i am very careful about that because i know a lot of ad networks work with torrent or streaming sites)

- The call to action button are always "Continue", "Add extension" or "Add to Chrome"

This is supposed to be the newest one, we have not launched it yet but let me know what you think because i intend to use it for my next campaign.

[Oliver Dunk]

Hi Armand,

It looks like you might have a case open at the moment?

If so, that would be the best way to resolve this. Those are handled directly by the team responsible for enforcement and they would be in the best position to share more context or look at a possible appeal.

Thanks,

Oliver Dunk | DevRel, Chrome Extensions | https://developer.chrome.com/ | London, GB

--
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/f2e81b41-c64f-4e30-9e94-92be22b9c764n%40chromium.org.

[Armand Taled]

Thanks Oliver, while i really hope to get more feedback from the CWS team, i know by experience that they do NOT comment on individual pages so i am seeking a "community" response as to something that might have eluded me. It might also help other better understand the policy and avoid what happened to me.

Could you clarify the level of traffic that is required to warrant a take down, I am really concerned about a third party sending unsolicited non compliant traffic to my extension without my consent to cause a take down.

[Oliver Dunk]

That makes sense.

I don't have too much detail to share I'm afraid, but I can say that I don't believe that there's a specific number of downloads which are considered deceptive. Everything is taken in context and the intent is to only impact developers that are acting in bad faith.

I can see some room for confusion - for example, in the "recommended extension" screenshot, who is the extension recommended by? I'm not able to share any specifics about what or how much was flagged though, or even if the pages you've shared are the reason for the policy enforcement.

Oliver Dunk | DevRel, Chrome Extensions | https://developer.chrome.com/ | London, GB

[Armand Taled]

Thanks Oliver, i'll take into consideration the "recommended" comment, yet it seems a bit light to warrant taking down 200k happy users, so i am confident it was something else that triggered the take down.
Could you answer on the more general policy question about what is being reviewed : The landing page preceding the Chrome webstore product page OR the review can go back multiple pages (even if these pages are not controlled by the product owner) to warrant a take down ?

[Armand Taled]

I got a response from the appeal but its still very high level and does not answer the core questions about the level of pages for review :

• [0-9508000034788] Appeals for blfhlccbnkecehnppblgjinbfmlpeohb
  
• Violation: The item's distribution practices violate our Deceptive Installation Tactics policy by being marketed from an installation flow that is misleading to users and contains an improper disclosure.

1. being marketed from an installation flow that is misleading : Is it only about the page preceding the CWS ? Or does it involve multiple levels of pages before the CWS ? Could you provide the url flow so we can identify the issue and fix it for future distribution?

2.  improper disclosure :  Could you elaborate and reference the improper text ?
I need both informations to make sure this never happens again and i am sure its a use case that will help a lot of people understand a Policy that's very vague.

[Oliver Dunk]

Would you be able to follow-up with those questions on the appeal if you haven't already?

I don't know the context behind the enforcement so they would be in a better position to help :)

Oliver Dunk | DevRel, Chrome Extensions | https://developer.chrome.com/ | London, GB

[Armand Taled]

Here's the latest response we got, as usual very vague and not helping us to fix and avoid this in the future.

I am especially concerned with the "extension they may not want or need", the extension had great install and retention rate exactly because if was offering to remove the exact ads they were exposed to.

Thank you for contacting us again. We would like to let you know that we do not provide URL & landing page approval services for specific pages at this time, but you should take note that misleading users into thinking they must first download an extension before continuing to their desired website destination is considered an "abusive design patterns to mislead users into installing an extension they may not want or need" and is a violation of CWS Deceptive Installation Tactics policy.

Can you help us getting a more explicit answer, at least tell us which page was the culprit, it'll help us understand.
Also they have not provided any answer about the "preceding page or flow of multiple pages for the review", can you help on that too ?

Thanks your help is much appreciated and will ensure we provide a better advertising in the future.

[Armand Taled]

@oliver the appeal is not responding. Do you have any more insights to share that could help me so that it never happens again ?

[Sidratul Muntaha]

Hlw

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/d1383726-2168-4c29-9f22-90bab0d288e2n%40chromium.org.

[Oliver Dunk]

Hi Armand,

I haven't forgotten about this and am still looking to follow-up with the team. It may be next week because a number of us are away for thanksgiving.

That said, I will say that I expect the answer to be very similar to what you received in reply to your case. If you are misleading users, regardless of how it is done or how many pages it goes across, we would likely take action. I understand that in some cases you have limited control but it sounds like you are still aware of the experience users are getting.

I wouldn't be able to provide the specific reasons for the rejection over email and continuing on the case would be best for that.

Oliver Dunk | DevRel, Chrome Extensions | https://developer.chrome.com/ | London, GB

[Armand Taled]

Hello Oliver,

have you been able to get more info about this ?

I have a followup question, there is an advertising placement called "interstitial", where the ad networks overlays the content of the page with a modal, see example below, is this flow compliant ? The interstitial is closable and is not incentivised in any way.
Clicking on CONTINUE opens a newtab directly to the CWS product page.

[Oliver Dunk]

Hi Armand,

I was able to have a brief chat with the team about this. As I'm sure you are aware, we can't pre-approve specific flows or give a specific list of changes that would make an advertisement compliant. That simply wouldn't be practical.

Ultimately you are responsible for the advertisers you choose to work with. There isn't a specific set of rules I can share around how we enforce in these cases other than saying that we consider everything in context and in line with the policy.

Speaking personally, it seems in many of the examples you shared users might be trying to do something else or not realise that installing the extension is optional. With that in mind I would be worried that all of the examples you have shared including the interstitial might be flagged by reviewers.

Oliver Dunk | DevRel, Chrome Extensions | https://developer.chrome.com/ | London, GB