By the way, Google will most probably not restore the account, but I’d be interested to know whether it does because our startup is also similar to yours, and half of our eggs are in Google’s basket too. Please keep us (the community) updated.
Not hire someone who had been banned before due to ad fraud.
With Apple, I always get to deal with an actual human when they reject an app or update and while their descriptions can be a bit vague, it seems to direct me in the right direction to fix the issue. With Google, it's a nightmare. For example, recently they banned DroidScript, one of the most popular IDE on Android accusing them of committing Ad Fraud, and the developer had to create a whole media storm to get them to re-instate the app after 25 days:
Besides, why should we allow corporations to run their own private justice system?
Please name the part of the world where I am required to hire a former bank robber to manage my bank.
Oh wait. They do.
> Most convictions or cautions then become 'spent' after a specific amount of time. This might be after a few months or years, or straight away.
> You only need to tell a potential employer, university or college about a spent conviction or caution if all of the following apply:
> * they ask you to
> * they tell you that the role needs a standard or enhanced DBS check
> * it’s not removed ('filtered') from DBS certificates
> You can check if the employer, university or college is allowed to request the standard or enhanced DBS check. They can only do this for certain roles, for example if you’re working with children or in healthcare.
> It’s against the law for an employer, university or college to refuse you a role because you’ve got a spent conviction or caution, unless it makes you unsuitable for the role. For example, a driving conviction might make you unsuitable for a job as a driving instructor.
https://www.gov.uk/tell-employer-or-college-about-criminal-r...
> Applicants do not have to tell you about criminal convictions that are spent. You must treat the applicant as if the conviction has not happened, and cannot refuse to employ the person because of their conviction.
https://www.gov.uk/employer-preventing-discrimination/recrui...
[1] https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/news/articles/one-in-five...
It’s not as if devs go around with a visible scarlet letter for any malfeasance they get into. Nor is it reasonable brand people permanently.
It is the same as console games or anywhere someone else controls the platform.
IMO the fact that this is the best path is clear evidence that we need mobile app store reform. It's mind boggling to me that people still defend this status quo
It s probaly because it has become impossible not to put your eggs in the same 2 baskets. How else are people going to make an app / how are they going to launch a startup without an app? (I know it s possible to go web only, but they 'll probably not be taken seriously by investors)
The safest way to handle this is probably to not use both google play store and google ads. Going to be pretty hard to make an app without Play Store so I guess that means no using Google Ads. Too dangerous and Google will not support.
If you used, say, Facebook "audience network" ads, then no matter how angry Facebook gets, regardless if they're correct or not, at least your app would remain up.
Also if you're launching a startup you're probably not making much from ads and as using google ads is a HUGE existential risk for any app developer, you'd best not use ads. Its not like any end user ever used a startup's app because they like how well they implemented the ads.