Need clarification on Chrome Web Store rejection for YouTube-related functionality

[Noah Morris]

Hello,

I’m looking for guidance on a Chrome Web Store rejection we received for extension ID jneefkppomchboonbmpngkdigcbfgecf.

The rejection says our most recent submission was rejected for:

“Facilitating unauthorized access to or download of copyrighted content or media, specifically, YouTube.”
Violation reference ID: Blue Zinc

What is unclear to us is which exact feature or interaction triggered this.

Our extension includes a mix of research and analytics features, and some functionality that interacts with visible YouTube page data/content, such as:

• copying transcript text

• downloading video thumbnails

• copying video titles/metadata

• capturing a screenshot of a visible video frame

The rejection notice does not say whether the issue is:

1. one specific feature,

2. the combination of several features,

3. something added in the latest submission, or

4. a pre-existing feature that may have already existed in prior approved versions.

We want to comply, but right now the feedback is too broad for us to know what we actually need to remove or change.

What is especially confusing is that there appear to be many other Chrome extensions in the ecosystem, including well-known products such as vidIQ and many others, that seem to offer similar YouTube-related workflows or adjacent functionality.

To be clear, I’m not raising that as a defense, but as context for why the policy boundary is hard for us to understand in practice.

My questions are:

• Has anyone here received a similar Blue Zinc rejection?

• Were you able to get clarification on the exact offending feature?

• Does Chrome Web Store review generally look at the specific code change in the latest submission, or can it reject based on older existing functionality in the extension as a whole?

• In practice, are features like transcript copying, thumbnail downloading, or frame screenshots generally treated as prohibited YouTube content extraction?

Any insight would be appreciated, especially from anyone who has dealt with similar policy reviews and had to determine what exact functionality triggered the rejection.

Thank you.

[Oliver Dunk]

Hi Noah,

I know you opened a case and we'll look at that as soon as we can.

I don't have answers to the specific questions you asked but I wanted to reply for the benefit of others :)

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 visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/chromium-extensions/d1440dc8-17dd-4cb8-b2a7-4398dcec9aa1n%40chromium.org.