Google Play - link to project home against policy because it contains info on donating

[westnordost]

...unless those links lead to their own billing system, which charges a hefty commission.

The policy doesn't seem to make any difference between "in-app-payment" and donations (to FOSS software, at that) except if the donation is for a non-profit (i.e. tax-excempt) organization. StreetComplete has been displaying links to Patreon, Liberapay and Github Sponsors in-app, so I'll have to remove this.

Furthermore, it was rejected because they write I need to supply login credentials for them. I.e., login credentials for an openstreetmap account. It's a bit absurd, would they request login credentials for an email client too? Or an app that enables you to connect with your google account?

Message from Google Play

Links:

• Payments policy
• Web.archive.org of the same page to see how it changed since 2020

[westnordost]

I read the payments policy again yesterday and decided to appeal first because in my opinion, "payment" in paragraph 4 clearly refers to how payment is defined in paragraph 2, not any exchange of money.

Appeal

Issue 1:

I presume the payment policy you are referring to is

2. [...] apps [...] accepting payment for access to in-app features or services, including any app functionality, digital content or goods (collectively “in-app purchases”), must use Google Play’s billing system for those transactions
3. [...] apps may not lead users to a payment method other than Google Play's billing system. [...]

The donation links do not violate this policy, because no features, services, functionalities, content or goods are exchanged: they are not payments but donations. I.e. all functionality is available without any donations.

Issue 2:

No account is required to use this app. The donations are also not connected with an account. Also, the account is at a third party (OpenStreetMap, e.g. like a Wikipedia account). However, I don't expect you to take me by my word, so I created an OpenStreetMap account for you and provided the details in the prelaunch report settings.

[westnordost]

Reply

The answer is a bit longer but most is a generic template, the relevant part in respect of donation links is:

[...]

During review, we found that your app violates the Payments policy. Specifically, Google Play's billing system must not be used in cases where payments include tax exempt donations. You can read through the Payments policy page for more details.

For example, your app currently solicits donations. You can refer to the attached screenshot for additional information.

Donations may only be collected within an app under certain conditions:

1. The donations are for a validated tax-exempt organization (for example, a validated 501(c)(3) charitable organization in the United States or the local equivalent), and
2. The donations are collected through a secure payment system.

[...]

Step 2: Submit your proof of eligibility and/or update your app

If the donations are for a validated tax-exempt organization, please reply to this email and attach proof of the organization’s tax-exempt status (for example, Internal Revenue Service determination letter for entities in the United States).

Alternatively, if the organization is not a tax-exempt organization, you must remove the donation functionality from your app, or use Google Play's billing system when collecting donations.

I'd say this answer confirms that the rejection was not a misjudgement of a reviewer but official policy, because it very much looks like this reply was written with predefined text blocks / templates.

[westnordost]

Action taken

So for v40.1, the dialog will look like this for the Google Play version only:

v40.1 has been sent for review now. Manual review of the app may take to one week.

[naposm]

[westnordost]

Update rejected

The update was rejected again, with the usual template text (as in the first message) that it is in violation of the payment policy and without further explanation. However, a screenshot of the current version was attached:

Interpretation

The reviewers are interpreting the payments policy in a very broad sense. I have to assume this is official (undocumented) policy. The rule most likely be violated would be

[...] apps may not lead users to a payment method other than Google Play's billing system. This prohibition includes [...] leading users to other payment methods via [...] In-app [...] links [...]

Supplying the link to the project's home on GitHub seems to have been interpreted to be indirectly leading to a payment method. This is just one step away from "(FOSS) projects must keep it a secret from users that they can donate!" - which I finally see no basis for in the payments policy.

Action taken

So, I removed the link and explain why I removed the link. The dialog still kind of fulfills its purpose because it kind of makes clear that it is indeed possible to donate (somewhere).

Rather than completely removing that button, I find it worthwile to see where the confines of the (undocumented parts) of the payment policy are. If merely informing users about the possibility to donate was expounded to be equal to "leading to payment methods (via in-app links)", then it would at least be interesting to the broader public if that practice was exposed.

I've read a couple of threads on reddit and at least rejecting apps that have donation links (other than via in-app-payment) seems to be common practice. So this in itself is no news yet. See e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21270739

[matkoniecz]

I wonder are they going to interpret "mentioning that repository exists and mentioning that donate options are there" as linking and having donate option on repository as "payment method".

[peternewman]

As @FloEdelmann noticed, it's done the trick 🥳 :

Version 40.2 seems to be available in Google Play again.

Originally posted by @FloEdelmann in #3748 (comment)

[westnordost]

Oh, nice, I didn't notice.

[timothywashere]

Thank you for your considering supporting this app. Unfortunately, due to Google's illegal anti-competitive policies, we are not allowed to tell you how to support this app with donations. We aren't even allowed to tell you how to get to our project home page. Instead please click on this fart button.

[westnordost]

😆 that would be funny, I actually laughed. But I didn't want to be overly salty in that message because the goal of this dialog is to inform users about that they can donate, not to get users upset about Google.

[timothywashere]

On a serious note, do you think they would allow something along the lines of
We aren't allowed to ask you for money, but if you want to contribute in other ways, please click on this link to our project home page.

[westnordost]

I don't want to gamble. Also, that message sounds like you cannot donate at all.

[timothywashere]

Is this a new policy of Google?
Were the donate buttons new to SC?

I find this ridiculous and might e-mail a tech news website. Do you mind if I mention SC and link this thread?
I won't unless it's ok.

[westnordost]

Sure, go ahead!

The donate buttons have been added end of 2019, Google Play does not manually review every app update, though.

So, whether the app update was rejected because their payment policy changed, or whether their official interpretation of the policy changed, or whether it just went under the radar since it was implemented, I cannot say.

At least in 2019, there was a case where another app update was rejected because it contained a donate button. That case was even mentioned on several tech-news sites. So, even though the policy linked above does not spell out a prohibition of donate buttons (that lead somewhere else than In-App-Purchases), this is no precedent.

The (minor) precedent here is that linking to the project home was interpreted as "leading users to a payment method", in the context of informing about donating (see #3768 (comment)).

[comparesheriff]

Is this a new policy of Google? Were the donate buttons new to SC?

I find this ridiculous and might e-mail a tech news website. Do you mind if I mention SC and link this thread? I won't unless it's ok.

Great Idea!

You could additionally ask Catima if you could include their recent problems with PlayStory Compliance changes to emphasize the ridiculousness:
CatimaLoyalty/Android#439

[udittmer]

Is this a new policy of Google?

Lots of apps have had this happen. I've had mine rejected twice for using language like "support app development" and "donate via Paypal" etc. Now I just mention that it's possible to gift me something from an Amazon wish list, along with a link to my web page where that is explained. And on that page people will also find a link to donate via Paypal :-)

[Altonss]

I find this ridiculous and might e-mail a tech news website. Do you mind if I mention SC and link this thread?
I won't unless it's ok.

This issue is cited here https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/02/google_blocks_android_tool/ :)

[dtmrc]

Is this a new policy of Google?

Lots of apps have had this happen. I've had mine rejected twice for using language like "support app development" and "donate via Paypal" etc. Now I just mention that it's possible to gift me something from an Amazon wish list, along with a link to my web page where that is explained. And on that page people will also find a link to donate via Paypal :-)

🤔 nothing personal