[Bartweiss]

I mean, this could be as simple as internal app teams not going through the same form, or not getting re-reviewed automatically because it's assumed they'll speak up if they add anything objectionable. And Fleksy's point about being targeted for their increasing use count wouldn't require intentional targeting either - that could just be an automatic "trigger an extra review when user count grows enough".

Which doesn't make it acceptable, obviously. It just means that malice isn't required for unfairness - all it takes is Google fixing the dumb mistakes which hurt them faster than the ones that hurt others.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Letting your own apps bypass the review process sounds pretty anti-competitive to me...

[Bartweiss]

Yeah, that was a weak example on my part. If they're actually skipping the normal review process, that's either malice or unreasonable negligence. And the Google Play followup of "your app is mature and should be PEGI 16" implies a human paid actual attention to this case, which makes it seem much less innocent.

I guess I can imagine some special cases that wouldn't be Google treating itself differently, like triggering reviews when a publisher's largest app crosses a size threshold and assuming established publishers can trusted more generously. But honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Google just carved out an internal exception.

And the PEGI 16 request goes beyond "not the same treatment as Gboard" to "objectively incorrect review outcome", so regardless something is fishy...