I won't re-submit to try to have the dev build restored in the CWS, uBO does not "bundle unrelated functionality" as implied in the email, thus closing as wontfix.

Sounds like a false positive on their part. So dev builds users are stuck on rc0 build now ?

Sounds like a false positive on their part

No point speculating one way or another, my experience with the CWS in the past is that we will never know why it was labelled "REJECTED", they never disclose the exact "why".

But in the past, re-submitting worked, didn't it ?

Also, keep in mind that the next stable release of uBO is essentially what 1.22.5rc1+ is.

But in the past, re-submitting worked, didn't it ?

Your point? I should spam re-submissions with no changes until I am banned from the CWS? Let's leave it at this: wontfix, and I do not want a thread filled with speculations, this accomplishes absolutely nothing productive in the end (https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/ is more appropriate for this).

My point: try once again, or look into jspenguin2017/uBlockProtector#312 as this was suggested to you before too.

If none of those work then give up.

until I am banned from the CWS?

Trying it once more is not going to cost you anything. Anyways, your choice in the end.

look into jspenguin2017/uBlockProtector#312 as this was suggested to you before too

This post is more than two years old. Submissions of uBO dev build to the CWS is already and has been automated for long while now.

Just for the sake of having tried, I submitted 1.22.5rc2, and I received the same exact answer as above.

I also sent the following reply:

There is no "bundles of unrelated functionality" in uBlock Origin.

Could you please be more specific about which part of uBlock Origin you
consider to be a "bundle"?

This was the answer:

Subject Re: Chrome Web Store: Removal notification for uBlock Origin development build

Dear Developer,

Your Google Chrome item, " uBlock Origin development build ", with ID: cgbcahbpdhpcegmbfconppldiemgcoii did not comply with our policies and was removed from the Google Chrome Web Store.

Your item did not comply with the following section of our policy:

An extension should have a single purpose that is clear to users. Do not create an extension that requires users to accept bundles of unrelated functionality, such as an email notifier and a news headline aggregator. If two pieces of functionality are clearly separate, they should be put into two different extensions, and users should have the ability to install and uninstall them separately.

For example, an extension that provides a broad array of functionalities on the New Tab Page/ Start-up Page but also changes the default search are better delivered as separate extensions, so that users can select the services they want.

For more information on the new Chrome extensions quality policy, please refer to the FAQ:

https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/single_purpose

---

Developer Terms of Service:

https://developers.google.com/chrome/web-store/terms

Program Policies:

https://developers.google.com/chrome/web-store/program_policies

Branding Guidelines:

https://developers.google.com/chrome/web-store/branding

In other words, stonewalling.

Since the next uBO release will essentially be what 1.22.5rc2 is, consider that uBO is probably coming to an end of life in the Chrome Web Store -- there is no good reason to believe uBO 1.22.5rc2 would no longer be rejected with only changing the version number to 1.23.0.

Those who still want to use uBO will have to find another browser for which uBO will still be available.

Given this stance of theirs, would you try to update/upload the stable version to the store or not ?

I will upload stable to the Chrome Web Store, but given 1.22.5rc2 is rejected, logic dictates that 1.23.0 will be rejected. Actually, logic dictates that 1.22.5rc0 should also be rejected and yet it's still available in the Chrome Web Store. But as you can see, logic is not at work here, it's arbitrariness conveniently hiding behind vague, unspecific accusations of "policy violations".

They're going with their same "bundled" BS rethoric, I have sent some feedback and some strong words on their web-store page, I doubt that would do anything to change the situation, though this is not how I was expecting to end :(