Inconsistent policy enforcement:
Nik Medica
The current rejection reason claims that our extension is banned because it 'detects' or 'functions' on adult domains. This ruling contradicts the established enforcement standard applied to othe utilities currently active on the Web Store.
We can't get adequate response via the support team so we're trying it here. All we want is for our extension to be evaluated under the same 'utility exception' applied to the following categories:
1. Password managers (e.g., LastPass, 1Password)
Function: These extensions explicitly detect login fields on pornographic websites and inject data (credentials) into the page
Precedent: They are allowed because they are classified as utilities, not 'adult content,' even though they function on adult sites
2. AdBlockers (e.g., uBlock Origin, AdBlock Plus)
Function: These extensions scan and modify the DOM on pornographic sites to remove advertisements
Precedent: They are permitted to function on these domains because they are content-neutral tools
3. VPN extensions (e.g., NordVPN, ZenMate)
Function: These tools explicitly facilitate access to blocked adult sites
Precedent: They are allowed because their primary purpose is 'Connectivity/Security,' not promoting the content itself
Our compliance argument: TPD Deals performs the exact same technical action as a Password Manager or AdBlocker: It detects the domain to provide a content-neutral service (coupons/savings).
If the Web Store permits a Password Manager to inject data into a porn site, it must equitably permit a Shopping Utility to inject a discount code into the same site. We are requesting that our extension be re-classified as a shopping utility consistent with these existing precedents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And also:
1. The extension connects only to our local SFW discount site (tpd.deals)
2. It does not contain or link directly to adult content
Based on Web Store policies, compliance is determined by the extension's immediate link destination. Any navigation beyond that verified landing page is user-initiated and should not be attributed to the extension's functionality. And like we said the only site that is connected with the extension itself is our SAFE FOR WORK discount site
Case: [5-5004000040115]
Extension ID: fpepjgganmmnbbeiobaalkkajjnonkec
Patrick Kettner
--
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/e40d3fdc-44a4-4048-b713-514746400375n%40chromium.org.
Patrick Kettner
Hey sir, sorry for bothering you on the weekend. Were you able to re-evaluate or discuss our precedents with the team already, by any chance. Again sorry for the constant messages, it's just that this is of course super important to our entire business.
Hope to hear from you soonOn Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 10:38 PM Nik <n...@theporndude.com> wrote:Oh that is incredibly good to hear. Thank you so much sir.
We have been working on this project for 7 months with a strict focus on keeping the ecosystem 100% safe-for-work, so it means a lot to have someone actually look at it fully.
We are standing by. If the Policy Team needs anything specific to verify the safety (e.g., a video demo, source code walkthrough, or test credentials), just let us know and we will provide it immediately.
Thanks again for the help.
Patrick Kettner
Copy that sir, thanks for the update (again).
And thanks for understanding our persistence here. Like I said, we've been working on this project for 7 months, and the 'anxiousness' comes from seeing generic responses that conpletely ignore our context/arguments. It is a huge relief to have you actually looking at it.
Please excuse me for repeating myself, I just want to be 100% sure that all pillars of our reasoning are known and taken into account:
1. Zero explicit material: Our extension (including the listing, pop-ups, and landing site) contains absolutely ZERO explicit content
2. No direct linking: We do not direct users to explicit sites, only to our SFW discount page. Anything beyond that is user-initiated behavior (same logic as Google Search results)
3. The utility factor: The detection of these sites is the only connection we have. We believe this shouldn't be a violation, considering many approved utilities (AdBlockers, VPNs, Password Managers) function on the exact same domains in the same way.
Based on these points, we believe the current rejection reasons are factually incorrect and do not apply to our extension.
Nik
We have been working on this project for 7 months with a strict focus on keeping the ecosystem 100% safe-for-work, so it means a lot to have someone actually look at it fully.
We are standing by. If the Policy Team needs anything specific to verify the safety (e.g., a video demo, source code walkthrough, or test credentials), just let us know and we will provide it immediately.
Thanks again for the help.
Nik
Hope to hear from you soon
Nik
Copy that sir, thanks for the update (again).
And thanks for understanding our persistence here. Like I said, we've been working on this project for 7 months, and the 'anxiousness' comes from seeing generic responses that conpletely ignore our context/arguments. It is a huge relief to have you actually looking at it.
Please excuse me for repeating myself, I just want to be 100% sure that all pillars of our reasoning are known and taken into account:
1. Zero explicit material: Our extension (including the listing, pop-ups, and landing site) contains absolutely ZERO explicit content
2. No direct linking: We do not direct users to explicit sites, only to our SFW discount page. Anything beyond that is user-initiated behavior (same logic as Google Search results)
3. The utility factor: The detection of these sites is the only connection we have. We believe this shouldn't be a violation, considering many approved utilities (AdBlockers, VPNs, Password Managers) function on the exact same domains in the same way.
Based on these points, we believe the current rejection reasons are factually incorrect and do not apply to our extension.
Nik
Nik
Patrick Kettner
Hey sir, still no updates?
Patrick Kettner
Thanks for the quick response sir🙏Aha not even a rough ETA?. I assume the decision/discussion should definitely be finalized this week right? Or am I wrongThe major thing we want to make sure is that all our points are taken into consideration when making any final decisions. Basically we want to avoid the scenario where we get the final decision, that doesn't address our arguments/justifications, which then delays the process by another week (or two) essentially.So I put everything into a nicer form again, if by any chance you'll have to provide additional briefs to the people in charge of the policy team:---------------------------------------The 2 rejections cited two specific policy violations. Below, we provide evidence demonstrating why neither of these violations applies to our submission.
Violation 1: "We don’t allow items that contain or direct users to content with nudity, graphic sex acts, or sexually explicit material."
Our Response: This violation is factually incorrect regarding our submission. We strictly adhere to the Safe-For-Work (SFW) ecosystem guidelines.
1. Zero Explicit Content: The extension itself—including the manifest, source code, UI pop-ups, and Store Listing—contains absolutely zero sexually explicit material, nudity, or graphic content.
2. No Direct Linking: The extension does not direct users to explicit sites. It links exclusively to our verified, Safe-For-Work discount landing page (
tpd.deals).3. Jurisdiction of Navigation: Based on Web Store policy, compliance is determined by the extension's immediatelink destination. Our immediate destination is compliant. Any navigation beyond that verified page is user-initiated behavior, conceptually identical to a Google Search result leading to a specific domain.
Violation 2: "Providing functionality on pornographic sites."
Our Response: The rejection claims we are banned for "detecting" or "functioning" on adult domains. However, this ruling contradicts the established enforcement standards applied to other Universal Utilitiescurrently active on the Web Store.
We request that our extension be evaluated under the same "Utility Exception" applied to the following categories that function on these exact same domains:
Password Managers (e.g., LastPass, 1Password): These extensions explicitly detect login fields on pornographic websites and inject data (credentials). They are allowed because they are classified as Utilities.
AdBlockers (e.g., uBlock Origin):These extensions actively scan and modify the DOM on pornographic sites to remove ads. They are permitted as content-neutral tools.
VPN Extensions (e.g., NordVPN):These explicitly facilitate access to blocked adult sites.
Our Compliance Argument: Our extension performs the exact same technical action as these approved utilities: It detects the domain to provide a content-neutral service (savings/coupons).
If the Web Store permits a Password Manager to inject data into a porn site, it must equitably permit a Shopping Utility to inject a discount code into the same site. We are requesting that our extension be re-classified as a Shopping Utility consistent with these existing precedents.
Conclusion Based on the above, the rejection reasons are invalid:
We do not contain or link to explicit content.
Our "functionality" on these sites is standard for accepted Web Store Utilities.
Nik
The 2 rejections cited two specific policy violations. Below, we provide evidence demonstrating why neither of these violations applies to our submission.
Violation 1: "We don’t allow items that contain or direct users to content with nudity, graphic sex acts, or sexually explicit material."
Our Response: This violation is factually incorrect regarding our submission. We strictly adhere to the Safe-For-Work (SFW) ecosystem guidelines.
1. Zero Explicit Content: The extension itself—including the manifest, source code, UI pop-ups, and Store Listing—contains absolutely zero sexually explicit material, nudity, or graphic content.
2. No Direct Linking: The extension does not direct users to explicit sites. It links exclusively to our verified, Safe-For-Work discount landing page (
tpd.deals).3. Jurisdiction of Navigation: Based on Web Store policy, compliance is determined by the extension's immediatelink destination. Our immediate destination is compliant. Any navigation beyond that verified page is user-initiated behavior, conceptually identical to a Google Search result leading to a specific domain.
Violation 2: "Providing functionality on pornographic sites."
Our Response: The rejection claims we are banned for "detecting" or "functioning" on adult domains. However, this ruling contradicts the established enforcement standards applied to other Universal Utilitiescurrently active on the Web Store.
We request that our extension be evaluated under the same "Utility Exception" applied to the following categories that function on these exact same domains:
Password Managers (e.g., LastPass, 1Password): These extensions explicitly detect login fields on pornographic websites and inject data (credentials). They are allowed because they are classified as Utilities.
AdBlockers (e.g., uBlock Origin):These extensions actively scan and modify the DOM on pornographic sites to remove ads. They are permitted as content-neutral tools.
VPN Extensions (e.g., NordVPN):These explicitly facilitate access to blocked adult sites.
Our Compliance Argument: Our extension performs the exact same technical action as these approved utilities: It detects the domain to provide a content-neutral service (savings/coupons).
If the Web Store permits a Password Manager to inject data into a porn site, it must equitably permit a Shopping Utility to inject a discount code into the same site. We are requesting that our extension be re-classified as a Shopping Utility consistent with these existing precedents.
Conclusion Based on the above, the rejection reasons are invalid:
We do not contain or link to explicit content.
Our "functionality" on these sites is standard for accepted Web Store Utilities.
Nik
Patrick Kettner
Hey Patrick, sorry to bother you again, it's just that it's been 8 days since you guys started looking into re-evaluate our rejection. So it would just help us tremendously to know at least roughly on where we stand, or in other words how you guys are progressing with the process.