My Location Guard Extension removed for “spamming activity” — requesting guidance and manual review
25 views
Skip to first unread message
Emanuel Durgan
9:51 AM (4 hours ago) 9:51 AM
to Chromium Extensions
Hello Chromium Extensions community and Chrome Web Store Team,
I am the developer of My Location Guard.
Item ID: kcbmdejmlcdjmfdiaepfblnocimhlnfm
I am posting here because our extension was removed from the Chrome Web Store, and we are trying to understand what exactly needs to be fixed in order to bring it back into compliance.
My Location Guard has been used by more than 30,000 users for over a year. It was also awarded the Chrome Web Store “Featured” badge, and the listing has more than 130 positive reviews from users. The extension is used daily by people for work, QA testing, development, marketing tasks, education, and browser privacy use cases.
The extension’s single purpose is simple: it lets users control how websites receive browser geolocation through the standard Geolocation API. The user selects a mode inside the extension UI, and the extension modifies the result of navigator.geolocation according to that user-selected mode.
The extension does not help users bypass blocks or access restricted content. It is not a VPN, proxy, or unblocker. It only changes the browser Geolocation API response according to the user’s settings.
The original removal notice mentioned two issues:
1. Protecting User Privacy / Limited Use: “Search history”
2. Spam and Placement in the Store: remove excessive keywords from the Chrome Web Store listing
Regarding the “Search history” concern:
My Location Guard does not collect, store, transmit, sell, or analyze users’ browsing history, search history, page URLs, page titles, search queries, or webpage content.
The extension has never used the Chrome history permission.
In the previous version, the tabs permission was used only to update the internal geolocation state across already opened tabs after the user changed the selected mode in the extension. It was not used to collect browsing activity, search history, website content, or user queries. However, we understood that this implementation may have looked too broad, so we reviewed and minimized the logic in the updated build.
We also reviewed other implementation details that may have caused confusion during review. Previously, analytics were used only for internal extension events, such as feature usage, satisfaction surveys, and UI improvements. These events were not used to collect browsing history, search queries, page URLs, page titles, or webpage content. In the updated submitted build, we removed analytics from the extension to avoid any possible misunderstanding.
Current data handling:
- The extension stores user settings locally using the storage permission.
- Stored data includes selected mode, saved coordinates, favorite locations, protection settings, and UI preferences.
- The extension does not read webpage content.
- The extension does not collect browsing history.
- The extension does not collect search history.
- The extension does not collect page URLs or search queries.
- The extension does not sell or share user data.
Regarding permissions:
- storage is used to save the user’s selected mode, coordinates, saved locations, protection settings, and UI preferences locally.
- scripting is used to register local content scripts required for the geolocation override to work before a website requests location.
- geolocation is used only when the user explicitly clicks to use their real location inside the popup.
- host permissions are needed because websites can request geolocation on any webpage, and the extension must apply the user-selected geolocation behavior consistently.
We also removed the activeTab permission because it is no longer needed in the current version.
Regarding the “Spam and Placement in the Store” concern:
We reviewed and rewrote the Chrome Web Store listing description to remove excessive keywords and make the description clearer, more natural, and more focused on the actual product functionality. If the issue was related to keyword stuffing in the listing, we are fully ready to correct it further.
However, after our appeal, we were told that the extension was involved in “spamming activity,” that spam content is an unrectifiable violation, and that the extension will not be reinstated. We were also told that details about the spam activity cannot be disclosed for security reasons.
This is the part we cannot understand.
My Location Guard does not send notifications, does not send messages on behalf of users, does not redirect users to unrelated pages, does not manipulate ratings, reviews, or installs, does not use fraudulent or incentivized installs/reviews/ratings, and does not exist only to launch another app, extension, theme, or webpage.
The extension does not try to deceive users. It provides a clear user-facing function that is controlled directly from the extension UI.
If the problem is only related to the text inside the Chrome Web Store description, we would really like to understand why this cannot be corrected by updating the listing and submitting a compliant version. We are ready to change the text, screenshots, metadata, permissions, implementation details, or any other part that may be considered non-compliant.
We understand that the Chrome Web Store team may not be able to disclose security-sensitive details. However, without even a general category of the issue, we cannot understand what needs to be fixed.
For example, it would help to know whether the issue is related to:
- Chrome Web Store listing / metadata
- extension permissions
- extension functionality
- external requests
- user flow
- similarity to another extension
- reviews / ratings / installs
- another Spam policy area
Since the removal, users have been contacting us every day asking when the extension will be available again. Our internal satisfaction surveys showed that around 80% of respondents were satisfied with the extension and actively used it. Many users rely on it for work, study, business, testing, and browser privacy needs.
We have been telling users that we are trying to resolve the issue, but without clearer guidance or a manual review, we cannot be sure what exactly needs to be changed.
Our main goal is not only to understand the enforcement decision, but also to resolve the issue in a way that allows My Location Guard to be reinstated. Many users still depend on the extension, and we want to make sure they can continue using a compliant version of the product.
We are not trying to bypass Chrome Web Store policies. We want to understand the issue, fix anything that may be non-compliant, and bring the extension fully into compliance.
Could someone from the Chrome Web Store team please help us escalate this case for a manual human review, provide at least high-level guidance on what area caused the “spamming activity” classification, and help us restore My Location Guard to the Chrome Web Store so existing and future users can continue using it?
If any changes are required before reinstatement, we are ready to make them immediately and submit an updated compliant version.
Thank you for any help or clarification.
I am the developer of My Location Guard.
Item ID: kcbmdejmlcdjmfdiaepfblnocimhlnfm
I am posting here because our extension was removed from the Chrome Web Store, and we are trying to understand what exactly needs to be fixed in order to bring it back into compliance.
My Location Guard has been used by more than 30,000 users for over a year. It was also awarded the Chrome Web Store “Featured” badge, and the listing has more than 130 positive reviews from users. The extension is used daily by people for work, QA testing, development, marketing tasks, education, and browser privacy use cases.
The extension’s single purpose is simple: it lets users control how websites receive browser geolocation through the standard Geolocation API. The user selects a mode inside the extension UI, and the extension modifies the result of navigator.geolocation according to that user-selected mode.
The extension does not help users bypass blocks or access restricted content. It is not a VPN, proxy, or unblocker. It only changes the browser Geolocation API response according to the user’s settings.
The original removal notice mentioned two issues:
1. Protecting User Privacy / Limited Use: “Search history”
2. Spam and Placement in the Store: remove excessive keywords from the Chrome Web Store listing
Regarding the “Search history” concern:
My Location Guard does not collect, store, transmit, sell, or analyze users’ browsing history, search history, page URLs, page titles, search queries, or webpage content.
The extension has never used the Chrome history permission.
In the previous version, the tabs permission was used only to update the internal geolocation state across already opened tabs after the user changed the selected mode in the extension. It was not used to collect browsing activity, search history, website content, or user queries. However, we understood that this implementation may have looked too broad, so we reviewed and minimized the logic in the updated build.
We also reviewed other implementation details that may have caused confusion during review. Previously, analytics were used only for internal extension events, such as feature usage, satisfaction surveys, and UI improvements. These events were not used to collect browsing history, search queries, page URLs, page titles, or webpage content. In the updated submitted build, we removed analytics from the extension to avoid any possible misunderstanding.
Current data handling:
- The extension stores user settings locally using the storage permission.
- Stored data includes selected mode, saved coordinates, favorite locations, protection settings, and UI preferences.
- The extension does not read webpage content.
- The extension does not collect browsing history.
- The extension does not collect search history.
- The extension does not collect page URLs or search queries.
- The extension does not sell or share user data.
Regarding permissions:
- storage is used to save the user’s selected mode, coordinates, saved locations, protection settings, and UI preferences locally.
- scripting is used to register local content scripts required for the geolocation override to work before a website requests location.
- geolocation is used only when the user explicitly clicks to use their real location inside the popup.
- host permissions are needed because websites can request geolocation on any webpage, and the extension must apply the user-selected geolocation behavior consistently.
We also removed the activeTab permission because it is no longer needed in the current version.
Regarding the “Spam and Placement in the Store” concern:
We reviewed and rewrote the Chrome Web Store listing description to remove excessive keywords and make the description clearer, more natural, and more focused on the actual product functionality. If the issue was related to keyword stuffing in the listing, we are fully ready to correct it further.
However, after our appeal, we were told that the extension was involved in “spamming activity,” that spam content is an unrectifiable violation, and that the extension will not be reinstated. We were also told that details about the spam activity cannot be disclosed for security reasons.
This is the part we cannot understand.
My Location Guard does not send notifications, does not send messages on behalf of users, does not redirect users to unrelated pages, does not manipulate ratings, reviews, or installs, does not use fraudulent or incentivized installs/reviews/ratings, and does not exist only to launch another app, extension, theme, or webpage.
The extension does not try to deceive users. It provides a clear user-facing function that is controlled directly from the extension UI.
If the problem is only related to the text inside the Chrome Web Store description, we would really like to understand why this cannot be corrected by updating the listing and submitting a compliant version. We are ready to change the text, screenshots, metadata, permissions, implementation details, or any other part that may be considered non-compliant.
We understand that the Chrome Web Store team may not be able to disclose security-sensitive details. However, without even a general category of the issue, we cannot understand what needs to be fixed.
For example, it would help to know whether the issue is related to:
- Chrome Web Store listing / metadata
- extension permissions
- extension functionality
- external requests
- user flow
- similarity to another extension
- reviews / ratings / installs
- another Spam policy area
Since the removal, users have been contacting us every day asking when the extension will be available again. Our internal satisfaction surveys showed that around 80% of respondents were satisfied with the extension and actively used it. Many users rely on it for work, study, business, testing, and browser privacy needs.
We have been telling users that we are trying to resolve the issue, but without clearer guidance or a manual review, we cannot be sure what exactly needs to be changed.
Our main goal is not only to understand the enforcement decision, but also to resolve the issue in a way that allows My Location Guard to be reinstated. Many users still depend on the extension, and we want to make sure they can continue using a compliant version of the product.
We are not trying to bypass Chrome Web Store policies. We want to understand the issue, fix anything that may be non-compliant, and bring the extension fully into compliance.
Could someone from the Chrome Web Store team please help us escalate this case for a manual human review, provide at least high-level guidance on what area caused the “spamming activity” classification, and help us restore My Location Guard to the Chrome Web Store so existing and future users can continue using it?
If any changes are required before reinstatement, we are ready to make them immediately and submit an updated compliant version.
Thank you for any help or clarification.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages