Strange Rejection - Red Magnesium - 2 Million Users

[Ahmed Rafi Ullah]

Hi all,

We just received a rejection for our extension “Windscribe – MV3 Experimental” (Item ID: fgcngeihbacfndglmmmdkkdlhgndkaaf) with the following violation:

Quality Guidelines - Single Purpose
Violation Reference ID: Red Magnesium
Violation: Providing multiple unrelated functionalities
Stated Purpose: Enhance the user's level of privacy online
Additional: “Ad blocking”

This rejection is puzzling, as:

• The extension’s sole purpose is privacy protection.

• Any ad blocking logic exists only to prevent privacy-invasive trackers, which is part of the broader privacy goal. 

• Its under a user controllable toggle

• The extension does not override search engines, new tab, or home page.

• No unnecessary permissions are requested, nor were any new permissions requested.

• This is an experimental version where we test privacy-related features before rolling them into our main extension (which has been live for years and serves over 2 million users).

We’ve always included tracker/ad blocking in our privacy suite and have never had issues until now. The manifest and functionality haven’t changed in any way that should trigger this.

My questions

- Has there been a recent policy interpretation change regarding what qualifies as “single purpose” when it comes to privacy vs. ad blocking?

- Is blocking trackers via declarativeNetRequest now considered a separate “ad blocking” purpose, even when integrated into a privacy extension?

- What’s the best way to reframe our listing or UI language to clearly convey that this is not a multi-function tool, but a privacy-focused extension?

- Is the “Red Magnesium” reference ID tied to a specific class of violations (e.g. privacy + ad blocking bundling)?

We’re preparing a formal appeal, but I’d appreciate any clarification or guidance before proceeding — especially since this could potentially impact our main production listing if the interpretation is shifting.

Thanks in advance. Happy to share more detail if needed.

[Patrick Kettner]

Hello Ahmed,

I think an appeal is the best course of action in this case. If you can share your case number once you open it I would appreciate it.

thank you

patrick

best

Patrick Kettner |     Chrome Extensions |       developer.chrome.com   |        New York   

[Ahmed Rafi Ullah]

Thank you Patrick, i believe this is the case number 8-7066000039041 
though this was sent to my personal email rather than the developer email for some reason.

[Patrick Kettner]

That would mean it was opened with your personal email and as a result will probably be closed once reviewed (only the extension owner can file an appeal). I’d make sure to make a new case while making sure the email account you are logged into (in the upper right corner) is your developer email

Patrick

[Ahmed Rafi Ullah]

ah, i thought the email input for the developer would be the one used , i'll make sure to do it the correct way, thank you for letting me know !

[Ahmed Rafi Ullah]

So i sent the appeal from the correct dev email 
This is the case number

[8-0946000039131]

Thank you for your help! 

[Ahmed Rafi Ullah]

Appeal result in a rejection again for unrelated features that were already present for multiple years.