software legal-terms gambling
How Google Play Policy applies to different Developers
<p>I have a quiz game that was rejected from the Play Store on claims that it violates the <a href="https://play.google.com/about/restricted-content/gambling/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Gambling policy</a> because it currently allows users to win money for playing quizzes. </p>

<p>On appealing, I asked the Policy team "How is my app different from <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.showtimeapp" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Loco</a> or <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=in.zupee.zupee" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Zupee</a>? Basically, why can I not offer cash prizes for quizzes while they are allowed to?"</p>

<p>Their response <strong>"Any perceived compliance or non-compliance of other developers’ apps does not have any bearing on the compliance of your own apps."</strong></p>

<p>Could this mean that Google Play's policies are applied differently for different developers or apps?</p>

<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>&quot;Any perceived compliance or non-compliance of other developers’ apps does not have any bearing on the compliance of your own apps.&quot;</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Could this mean that Google Play's policies are applied differently for different developers or apps?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No, it means that you can't break the rules even if others are breaking the rules or you think they are breaking the rules.</p>
<p>I think it is worth noting that those apps are for the Indian market. I don't know which one you are in, but google will have different rules for different countries to comply with various regulatory requirements.</p>

<p>This is what Wikipedia reefers to as the "Other Stuff Exists" rule. That phrase means that just because other stuff exists that perhaps should not, is not a reason to postpone deleting things that do not meet standards.</p>

<p>This policy means that you will not be heard to argue that some other situation is worse, and therefore you should not be held to the rules. It means that each instance will be decided on its own merits, and what has or has not happened in any other instance is not relevant to the decision. It means that the policy enforcement mechanism is not a precedent-driven system.</p>

<p>This may or may not mean that policy enforcement is inconsistent, or even biased. More likely it means that there is simply no attempt to ensure detailed consistency in enforcement. It <strong>will</strong> mean that your views on the inconsistency or bias of the process will not be taken into account in a decision on whether your app violates the policy.</p>
