Thousands of Users Affected: Mass Removal of Extensions with Subscription Monetization. No Policy Violation, No Explanation

[Alex Sinclair]

Hi Oliver, Patrick, and Chrome Web Store Team,

First of all, thank you for everything you do for the CWS ecosystem. It's a great platform, and we've been building on it since 2017.

Unfortunately, I'm writing today about a very serious issue that is affecting our company, hundreds of developers who rely on us, and thousands of end users.

Who we are

I'm writing on behalf of AppBox – a subscription monetization platform for Chrome extensions that we launched 2,5 years ago. We were inspired by what Adapty (adapty.io) and RevenueCat (revenuecat.com) have done for the mobile ecosystem, and we wanted to bring the same kind of clean, transparent monetization infrastructure to Chrome extensions.

Why this matters for the CWS ecosystem

As you know, the Chrome Web Store has historically offered very few legitimate monetization options for extension developers. This gap is one of the main reasons black-hat schemes appear so often in the store.

We built a system that enables developers to activate white-hat monetization through subscriptions – embedding a paywall into their extension, configuring it freely, optimizing conversion, and accepting payments through dozens of legitimate payment providers. Dozens of extensions are now integrated with AppBox and monetize honestly through subscriptions, rather than resorting to data harvesting or other black-hat practices.

The problem

For the past 2.5 years, lots of extensions have been successfully integrated with AppBox, accepting subscription payments without any issues – passing CWS review, shipping regular updates, and growing their user bases. But over the past month, extensions that integrate with AppBox have suddenly started being removed from the Chrome Web Store with this message:

> Violation reference ID: Yellow Nickel
> Violation: Publishing an item that violates one or more sections of our Spam policy.

When developers appeal, they receive this reply:

> "Given the nature of this violation the item will not be reinstated. For more information, please refer to the Spam section of our Developer Program Policy."

No clear explanation has been provided to any of the affected developers. We have carefully reviewed the Spam section of the Developer Program Policy and we genuinely cannot identify which rule any of these extensions violated.

Our guesses (since no real reason was given):

Since we received no clarification, we can only guess what triggered the removals:

Possibility 1: Shared monetization infrastructure flagged as spam. Because all our customers' paywalls are served from the same domain (appbox.space), the review system may have interpreted this as multiple extensions belonging to a single entity, and classified it as spam. But this is simply how any SaaS infrastructure works – Adapty, RevenueCat, Stripe, and every other monetization SDK operates the same way. A shared paywall backend is not spam.

Possibility 2: Our paywall opens in an iframe over the extension's UI. There is a similar historical case from 2021 (https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/chromium-extensions/c/YOwgoTD9spA) – and notably, that extension is now back in the store after being removed. But again – there is no rule in the CWS policies that prohibits this. Paywalls don't block the browser, can be closed at any time, and the extension can be uninstalled freely. This is the same UX pattern used by countless mobile apps and is universally accepted.

In either case, takedowns should be reserved for confirmed malware, not for behavior that isn't even mentioned in the policy.

What's especially confusing

The removal emails state that the violation can be fixed. But when developers upload a new build – even one with the paywall completely removed – moderation still rejects it, again without explanation. There is no path forward for these developers.

The impact

- These are not low-quality or suspicious products. The affected extensions have excellent ratings, thousands of genuine positive reviews, and large bases of loyal users who use them daily. Many users have specifically thanked developers in reviews for building useful, well-designed tools.
- A significant share of these users are paying subscribers who voluntarily chose to support the products. They have now lost access to extensions they actively paid for – through no fault of their own and with no warning.
- Developers have spent years building these extensions, shipping dozens of updates, all of which previously passed CWS review.
- Our own platform, which exists specifically to give developers a white-hat alternative to gray monetization, is being pushed out of the ecosystem.

A few of the affected extensions:

- SAML Request Tracer – gjhodfmodljmmndficilhkbikpccljkn – 27,000+ users, 1+ year in the store, Appeal ID [3-8443000041432]
- XPath Tester – cneomjecgakdfoeehmmmoiklncdiodmh – 20,000+ users, 1+ year in the store, Appeal ID [5-0908000040805]
- Image Text Extractor – pmeccjlemeohcobimhbphjnlokdmiilo – 20,000+ users, almost 2 years in the store, Appeal ID [4-4760000040923]
- Location Guard – kcbmdejmlcdjmfdiaepfblnocimhlnfm – 25,000+ users, more than 1 year in the store, Appeal ID [3-7498000040707]
- Chat Export to PDF – hiiildgldbpfbegcfgemoliikibfhaeh – 100,000+ users, 1+ year in the store, Appeal ID [4-2959000041164]
- Clear Cache & Cookies – jkmpbdjckkgdaopigpfkahgomgcojlpg – 41,000+ users, 2+ years in the store, Appeal ID [4-3988000041160]
- New Tab Tasks – mhbhbdkpjlofhhhfemeleclklfidfgjp – 28,000+ users, 2 years in the store, Appeal ID [7-8992000041439]

We're still collecting the full list of affected products and appeal case IDs from developers and will share them as they come in.

What we're asking for

1. Please review these removals manually. If something genuinely needs to be fixed, we are absolutely ready to fix it – but we need to know what it is.
2. Please clarify whether using a third-party subscription SDK is acceptable on the CWS. If it isn't, please say so explicitly in the policy, and give developers a reasonable migration window. If it is acceptable, please restore the affected extensions.
3. Please clarify whether iframe-based paywalls are acceptable. Again – if not, we will redesign. But this needs to be written down somewhere developers can actually read it.

Why this matters beyond us

We built AppBox specifically because the lack of legitimate monetization options on CWS is one of the root causes of the "scammy extension" problem the platform has long been known for. Removing the few services trying to fix this problem – without explanation – pushes developers back toward the gray-area monetization tactics everyone wants to eliminate.

We've been developing for the Chrome Web Store since 2017. We've invested enormous time, effort, and money into this ecosystem, and we've encouraged dozens of fellow developers to build here too. Decisions like these – sudden, unexplained, with no clear path to remediation destroy the single most important thing any business needs: the ability to plan.

Dozens of legitimate extensions, useful to real users, are at risk of disappearing over what appears to be a misunderstanding.

We're hoping for a fair and transparent review of our situation. If anything is genuinely wrong on our side, we will fix it immediately – we just need someone to tell us what it is.

Thank you very much for your time and attention, and thank you again for everything you do to develop and support the CWS ecosystem.

Best regards,
Alex

[Alexej Plate]

Hi everyone,

I’m the developer of XPath Tester (cneomjecgakdfoeehmmmoiklncdiodmh). It’s a Chrome extension for QA engineers, developers and automation people, so they can quickly test XPath and CSS selectors right on real web pages.

My focus on quality was also reflected in the ratings. I can’t describe how happy I was to receive reviews from users thanking me.

  

A couple of weeks ago it was removed from the store with no warning. I only got a very generic “Spam policy” reason, but no details about what exactly was wrong or what I need to fix.

I filed an appeal, but the answer looked like a standard automated reply. After that I also uploaded a new version and changed the things that I thought might be the problem, but it was rejected again. Still no clear explanation.

The most difficult part is that real users rely on this extension every day, including paid users. They write to me and ask what happened, but honestly I don’t know what to answer them.

This situation made me so frustrated that I also shared my story publicly on Twitter: https://x.com/AlexPl292/status/2059512872992923949 – because it's honestly one of the most demotivating things that has happened to me as a developer.

Dear Chrome Web Store team, please take another look at this case.

Thank you.

среда, 27 мая 2026 г. в 13:17:25 UTC+3, Alex Sinclair:

[Alexander Gross]

Hi,

Same thing happened to my extension (ID: mhbhbdkpjlofhhhfemeleclklfidfgjp) — almost 30,000 active users, 150+ positive reviews, 2 years in the store, removed for "Spam policy" with no clear explanation of what's actually wrong.

I've submitted an appeal but only get generic automated replies. Please take another look at this case 🙏🙏🙏

Appeal ID:  7-8992000041439

Thanks,
Alexander

[Marcus Ellison]

My extension GPT to PDF was removed three weeks ago.

2 years of work just gone overnight.  id: hiiildgldbpfbegcfgemoliikibfhaeh

[Emanuel Durgan]

Confirming this. ID: kcbmdejmlcdjmfdiaepfblnocimhlnfm, 25k users, 1+ years in the store. Same removal reason, same automated appeal reply. Patrick, Oliver, please help!

[Din]

Same issue. Paying users of my extension are asking what happened and I have no answer for them.. 

It's painful that CWS punishes developers who try to monetize the right way 🙁

[Alik Bairamov]

+1 removed 3 weeks ago, same Spam policy message, no real explanation

[Jimmy]

Me too. Extension (id jkmpbdjckkgdaopigpfkahgomgcojlpg) was working fine for over two years, then suddenly removed with the same generic message. very frustrating...

On Saturday, May 30, 2026 at 9:29:37 PM UTC+2 Emanuel Durgan wrote:

[Jimmy Joe]

Same problem. Removed without warning, appeal denied with template response. please look into this 😭

[Joan Gamper]

Confirming the same issue. yellow nickel violation, no specifics provided

[Alla Black]

Same here. Removed 3 weeks ago and now I can't even get an update through review, it just won't submit.
Support doesn't give me anything but the same template reply, no real reason. completely stuck...

[Alex Sinclair]

Hi Oliver, Patrick,

Bumping this thread. It's been 3 weeks since the original post and we still haven't received any response or clarification.

Meanwhile, real users, including paying subscribers, still can't access products they depend on.

New developers keep reaching out to us asking whether  subscription-based monetization is still allowed on the CWS at all, or whether the platform is gradually phasing it out. And honestly, we don't know what to tell them.

We're not asking for special treatment. We're asking for clarity. If something needs to be fixed, tell us what. If subscription monetization is no longer allowed, tell the community openly so people can plan accordingly.

Patrick, Oliver, could someone from the CWS team please take a look at this? Even a short response acknowledging that the case is being reviewed would mean a lot.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Alex