Announcement: Updates to the Developer Program Policies

[Stefan Van Damme]

Dear Developer,

We are announcing a set of policy updates designed to encourage the development of high quality products, prevent deceptive behavior, and ensure informed user consent. These updates include:

1. Minimum Functionality Policy Update—Expands our current Minimum Functionality Policy to include click-baity template extensions, empty extensions, and extensions that do not directly provide their stated functionality.
2. Misleading and Deceptive Behavior Policy Update—Prohibits anti-virus, privacy, and security extensions that provide no discernible protection or monitoring.
3. Affiliate Ads Policy—Establishes new disclosure requirements for extensions that include affiliate ad programs. Developers will now be required to disclose any affiliate programs to users before installation. Additionally, related user action is required before the inclusion of affiliate codes, links, or cookies.

Developers can also learn more about today's guidance in our Program Policies. These policy clarifications will go into effect on January 15, 2023. After that date, extensions in violation of these new policies may be removed from the Chrome Web Store and be disabled.

If you have any questions, you can contact developer support.

Thank you for your cooperation, and for your participation in the Chrome extension ecosystem!

- The Google Chrome Web Store team

Source: Chrome Web Store Developer email newsletter.

Thanks,
Stefan vd

[Uladzimir Yankovich]

It is interesting. With policies to ban dummies and deceptive applications, everything is clear.

But I didn't quite understand the Affiliate Ads policy.

Any affiliate program must be described prominently in the product's Chrome Web Store page, user interface, and before installation.
—What does before installation mean? If the installation takes place exclusively in the store.

Related user action is required before the inclusion of each affiliate code, link, or cookie.
—What does related user action mean? It would be valuable to get some good examples instead of violations.

An extension that appends an affiliate code to the URL or replaces an existing affiliate code in the URL without the user's explicit knowledge or related user action.
—What URLs are you talking about? On third-party sites? Or even about the links that its extension creates.

@Simeon, where is the best place to ask for clarification in such cases? Here or in support?

It would be better here since the answers would be available to the entire community.

[Stefan Van Damme]

Hi Yankovich,

About before installation

An example is the developer's website where it was clearly stated whether there is an affiliate or not. Or in a Windows application or Mac application that has a link to download the direct CRX file from the Chrome Web Store.

About Related user action

That is asking permission to allow this affiliate to be added to the web page. An example is a button, checkbox, or radio button to enable this feature.

About affiliate URL

Those are links such as Amazon Associates affiliate, Rakuten affiliate, Apple Store affiliate, eBay, TradeDoubler, Fiverr, CJ Affiliate, Shopify, etc. That developer is making money from the Chrome extension users while the user may not know it.

Thanks,
Stefan vd

[Uladzimir Yankovich]

About before installation

An example is the developer's website where it was clearly stated whether there is an affiliate or not. Or in a Windows application or Mac application that has a link to download the direct CRX file from the Chrome Web Store.

—Why is it needed, and how to control it? This will again end up with small developers writing nonsense on their sites under the install button, and large players will pass all traffic through dozens of landing pages that no one Google moderator will ever see.

Colleagues from the Play Market solved this problem long ago - https://gang.manganum.app/4ae71y. You need to copy and adapt a little.

Why doesn't the Chrome Store team take responsibility and resolve this? Politics is not a solution; it is a cover.

About Related user action

That is asking permission to allow this affiliate to be added to the web page. An example is a button, checkbox, or radio button to enable this feature.

—Good idea. But again I don't understand how it will be controlled.

About affiliate URL

Those are links such as Amazon Associates affiliate, Rakuten affiliate, Apple Store affiliate, eBay, TradeDoubler, Fiverr, CJ Affiliate, Shopify, etc. That developer is making money from the Chrome extension users while the user may not know it.

—Yes, I know, I have been working with affiliate marketing for many years. My question was about something else. Which references does this requirement apply to? Does this apply to the case when extensions replace links on sites, or does it apply to those links that the extension created in its interface?

If the latter, then everything will end up with all links being generated in JS, so the browser cannot display them in the lower left corner. Or will the next step be to disable the buttons and the JS link?

Who will control it, and how?


The issue of monetization is an important issue for both extension users and developers. Google should think about monetization tools that are profitable and convenient for everyone; then, the shadow market will die on its own. But instead of finding a way in 12 years to allow us to use Google Adsense, we get another policy.

I'm still intrigued. Why do we keep getting announcements of released policies and updates? Why does no one discuss anything with us at the project stage? Didn't the MV3 story teach anyone anything? There are dozens of people in this group with a wealth of experience who are happy to share it for free. Why don't Google managers want to take this gift?