Wrongful "Grey Lithium" Rejection - ID fpepjgganmmnbbeiobaalkkajjnonkec

[Nik]

We are a verified EU business attempting to launch our extension (ID: fpepjgganmmnbbeiobaalkkajjnonkec) but have been stuck in a rejection loop for 4 days (on this occasion, and 5 days in November). We've had a total of 5 rejections already. We are unable to get a clear response from standard support.

The Issue: We are receiving a "Grey Lithium" violation ("Providing functionality only on pornographic sites"). We have already fixed the secondary "Purple Nickel" error (removed a redirect link in the dashboard), but the Grey Lithium flag persists.

Why this is a False Positive: The rejection claims the extension is "only" for pornographic sites. This is factually incorrect based on the extension’s actual behavior and scope.

1. Universal Functionality (It works everywhere)

• The extension is active and "listening" on ALL domains (Google, Wikipedia, News sites, etc.).

• On any URL, the user can click the toolbar icon to perform a server-side check for deals. The utility (checking for savings) is universal and technically available on the open web, not restricted to adult domains.

2. Commerce vs. Content (It’s a Shopping Utility)

• Function: The tool injects alphanumeric coupons for paid subscriptions (SaaS, VPNs, Premium Membership). It does not host, render, or display explicit video/images.

• Precedent: This is a standard "Age-Restricted Commerce" tool, identical in function to coupon extensions for Alcohol Delivery or Vape Shops. It facilitates savings on legal transactions; it does not provide the content itself.

3. 100% SFW Assets & Ecosystem

• Store Listing & UI: Zero nudity, zero explicit text. The UI is strictly text-based (codes & discount %).

• Landing Page: The extension links exclusively to tpd.deals, a verified SFW shopping page.

4. Linking Jurisdiction

• Google Policy governs the extension and its immediate destination. Our immediate destination (tpd.deals) is compliant.

• Any navigation from that landing page to a third-party merchant is a user-initiated browsing choice, functionally identical to clicking a result on Google Search.

Request: We have submitted an appeal via the One Stop Support form but have not received a resolution. Can a Policy Specialist please review Case fpepjgganmmnbbeiobaalkkajjnonkec We are technically compliant and the "Adult" classification is blocking a legitimate shopping tool.

Thanks, Dev Team at TPD

[Patrick Kettner]

Hi Thre!

Could you share the case ID? I was not able to quickly find one

patrick

--
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/8186a42a-c2e0-463e-8a6d-d8472d4e6c7dn%40chromium.org.

[Patrick Kettner]

Thanks Nik

The one in the subject line is the chrome extension ID (the unique identifier for your extension in Chrome and on the Chrome Web Store. I can see your ticket in the queue, and will ping the team to see if there is anything to do in the meantime. Appreciate your patience! 

patrick

On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 4:36 PM Nik <n...@theporndude.com> wrote:

Hey Patrick, thanks for getting back to me

Sure thing, I added in the subject line and in the email itself but I guess that's not the ID you were looking for. This are all the ID-type numbers I can see associated with our case/extension

Item ID: fpepjgganmmnbbeiobaalkkajjnonkec

Support ticket ID: [5-5004000040115]

I can't find anything that states the "case ID" 

[Nik]

Hey Patrick, thanks for getting back to me

Sure thing, I added in the subject line and in the email itself but I guess that's not the ID you were looking for. This are all the ID-type numbers I can see associated with our case/extension

Item ID: fpepjgganmmnbbeiobaalkkajjnonkec

Support ticket ID: [5-5004000040115]

I can't find anything that states the "case ID" 

On Thursday, January 22, 2026 at 7:54:42 PM UTC+1 Patrick Kettner wrote:

[Nik]

Thank you much sir. Keeping fingers crossed

[Nik]

Hey Patrick, we're running out of options so hopefully you can offer some actual insight and feedback. The response from the chrome support was very brief and they didn't address our arguments. They only said this: 

• Violation: Providing functionality on  pornographic sites.
  
  
• Corrective action: None. This is not allowed per Chrome Web Store policies.

To which our response was: 

We would appreciate a specific response to our arguments regarding the linking structure.

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

They also ignored/or didn't see our detailed explanation, prior to their response:

2. APPEAL: Mature & Sexually Explicit Material (Violation: Grey Lithium)

The rejection notification stated: "Providing functionality only on pornographic sites."

We respectfully but firmly dispute this characterization. We believe this flagging is due to a misunderstanding of the extension's Classification (Commerce) and Technical Scope (Linking Jurisdiction).

Below is our detailed defense across four specific pillars of compliance:

A. Argument: Universal functionality (disputing the "only" clause)

The claim that the extension functions only on adult sites is factually incorrect regarding the software's behavior.

• Active on general domains: The extension is active and "listening" on all URLs 

• The "check" function is a function: On any domain, a user can engage the toolbar icon to check the database status. The extension performs a server-side check and returns a status message (e.g., "No deals found for this site" or "Visit supported sites").

• Conclusion: The utility (checking a database for potential savings) is a universal function available on the open web. It is not technically restricted to, nor does it exclusively operate on, adult domains.

B. Argument: Commerce vs. content (the shopping utility definition)

We request that the review team distinguish between a Content Host and a Shopping Utility.

• Nature of the tool: "TPD Deals" is a financial utility. Its sole function is to inject alphanumeric strings (coupons) into checkout fields.

• Zero content hosting: The extension does not host, render, buffer, or display sexually explicit videos, images, or audio. It handles metadata (prices, discount codes, merchant names), not media.

• The "age-restricted commerce" precedent: The Chrome Web Store permits extensions that facilitate savings for other age-restricted verticals, such as Alcohol Delivery, Vape/Tobacco shops, or Mature Gaming.

  • Logic: An extension providing a coupon for a wine delivery service is a shopping tool, not a tool for "intoxication."

  • Application: Similarly, "TPD Deals" provides coupons for legal, paid adult subscriptions. This is a legitimate commerce function designed to save the user money, distinct from "providing functionality for pornographic content."

C. Argument: The SFW ecosystem & assets

We have taken extreme measures to ensure that every asset hosted on Google servers is appropriate for a general audience.

• Store listing & icons: All imagery, screenshots, and icons are 100% Safe-For-Work (SFW). There is ZERO nudity, implied sexual activity, or graphic text.

• User interface (popup): The extension’s actual interface is strictly text-based. It displays codes and percentage-off signs. It does not contain thumbnails or explicit imagery.

• Landing page: All outgoing traffic is routed to tpd.deals. This is a verified, SFW shopping landing page that lists text-based offers. It contains ZERO explicit content.

D. Argument: Linking policy & jurisdiction (user behavior)

This is the most critical point regarding our compliance with the "Mature" policy.

• The Extension's "end of life": The technical functionality of the extension concludes the moment it directs a user to our SFW landing page (tpd.deals).

• The immediate destination rule: Google Policy governs the content within the extension and its immediate link destination. Our immediate destination is compliant.

• User-initiated navigation: If a user clicks a link on tpd.deals and navigates to a third-party merchant, that is a user-initiated browsing choice, functionally identical to a user clicking a result on Google Search.

  • Jurisdiction: Google does not hold a Search Extension liable if a user eventually navigates to an adult site via a clean search result. Similarly, our extension should not be penalized for where a user chooses to go after visiting our compliant landing page.

Conclusion & request

We have fixed the technical error regarding the Privacy Policy. regarding the content policy, we have demonstrated that:

1. The tool is a Shopping Utility, not a content provider.

2. The ecosystem (UI, Store Listing, Landing Page) is 100% Safe-For-Work.

3. The extension links only to a compliant intermediary, placing any further navigation outside the extension's scope.

We request a manual review to verify that "TPD Deals" is a legitimate, policy-compliant tool for the Mature/Shopping category.

Sincerely,
Dev team at TPD

[Nik]

Hello sir, sorry for bothering you. Really hoping you can provide some insight on this issue. We're really worried about the situation