Entire publisher account suspended after an unclear Red Magnesium finding - request for CWS transparency and human review

[Team Blockify]

Hi Chromium Extensions community and Chrome Web Store team,

I am documenting this publicly because this enforcement raises a broader concern for every Chrome extension developer: how can a publisher meaningfully comply, correct an issue, or appeal when the notice does not identify the specific behavior allegedly violating the policy?

Item: Spotify Ad Blocker - Blockify
Item ID: nfmlkliedggdodlbgghmmchhgckjoaml
Violation reference: Red Magnesium

Blockify was an established extension used by 450,000+ users. I recognize that an extension’s popularity does not exempt it from policy. However, the consequences imposed here make clarity, accuracy, and proportionality especially important.

THE ENFORCEMENT SEQUENCE

First, we received the following Single Purpose warning:

The notice was ambiguous and did not identify any specific screen, interface element, permission, code path, or reproducible behavior that constituted the alleged additional functionality.

The extension was then removed through a generic notice stating only that it did not comply with the Program Policies.

Shortly afterward, the entire publisher account was suspended and all associated items were removed. The account notice did not identify:

• Any serious or repeated abuse;

• Any deceptive conduct;

• Any attempt to circumvent enforcement; or

• Any specific conduct supporting suspension of the entire account.

WHY THE SINGLE PURPOSE FINDING IS UNCLEAR: 

Blockify has one narrow and readily understandable user-facing purpose: blocking ads.

It handles different advertising formats - including audio ads, video ads, display ads, pop-ups, redirects, and promotional advertisements - using the filtering method appropriate to each format. These are not separate products or unrelated services. They are different implementations of the same ad-blocking purpose.

Blocking ads and blocking promotions - one and the same thing. 

To be explicit, the submitted extension does not:

• Display, inject, or replace advertisements;

• Show unrelated promotions, or cross-product upsells;

• Add affiliate links, cookies, or redirects;

• Modify the new-tab page or search provider; or

• Bundle an unrelated service.

“General promotions” refer to promotional advertising being blocked or promotions being displayed by Blockify? No such clarification was ever provided. 

Blocking an audio advertisement, banner advertisement, pop-up advertisement, or promotional advertisement produces the same user-facing outcome: advertising content is blocked.

If the reviewer instead concluded that Blockify displays or injects promotions, that is a materially different allegation. In that case, the notice should identify the actual behavior supporting that conclusion so that it can be investigated and corrected. We tested a similar functionality in the past, but it was completely disabled after our initial experiment. 

This is not merely a disagreement concerning one extension.

A developer cannot meaningfully correct an unidentified behavior.

Enforcement may be strict, but it should also be specific, explainable, and capable of being remedied in good faith. Based on the information provided to us, removing the item and suspending the entire publisher account appears unfair and disproportionate.

REQUEST TO THE CHROME WEB STORE TEAM

I respectfully request that the Chrome Web Store team:

1. Clarify whether “ad and general promotions” means content blocked by Blockify or content (allegedly) displayed by Blockify;

2. Identify the specific interface element, permission, code path, or reproducible behavior that triggered the finding;

3. Conduct a substantive human review of the submitted extension and account suspension;

4. Reinstate the publisher account; and

5. Reinstate the extension under its existing item ID or return it to an editable state so that any specifically identified issue can be corrected.

We are prepared to audit every permission and code path, remove any ambiguous wording, and submit a narrowly scoped corrective revision.

We can provide the submitted package, version details, screenshots, demonstrations, permission explanations, and any other technical evidence through the appropriate private channel.

A clear response from the Chrome Web Store team would help not only us, but the broader developer community understand how this policy is being interpreted and how publishers can comply with it reliably.

Thank you.

Dhanur Sehgal