What Keel scores in Amazon's Child-Directed App policy, and what it does not
Keel scores 8 duties from this policy, and 5 parts of the page are out. The boundary most worth knowing sits outside the page entirely, and it is the first thing below.
This framework is one Amazon policy, not all of them. This policy is a delimited published document: four headed sections and a summary list, with a beginning and an end, so every requirement it states can be enumerated and 8 is that enumeration. It does not defer to another Amazon policy for its own requirements. But Amazon publishes separate Advertising ID, User Data Privacy and Appstore Advertising policies which bind the same developer, and this policy does not incorporate them. A developer subject to those is not covered by this framework.
The rule
A row here is one stated obligation the developer owes. Lists that enumerate how a single determination is assessed, or the alternative ways one duty may be satisfied, are carried in the parent row’s summary. Anything reserving Amazon’s own discretion, explaining a law rather than imposing an Appstore duty, or offering advice, is out.
Out of scope is not the same as inapplicable. Out of scope is not the same as inapplicable. Everything on the page governs an app Amazon treats as child-directed, and a developer who ignores the excluded material can still be rejected or suppressed. What Keel scores is the set of duties the developer can implement and evidence, because those are the ones a readiness percentage can honestly be measured against.
The near misses
Each of these reads like a requirement, and is still out. They are the calls most worth checking first, which is why they are named rather than absorbed into the counts above.
-
A different Amazon policy this one does not incorporateAmazon’s Advertising ID, User Data Privacy and Appstore Advertising policies
The boundary most worth knowing about, and the one no exclusion list would show, because these are not on the page at all. They are separate Amazon policies that bind the same developer, and this one does not incorporate them, so they are outside this framework. "Complete against the Child-Directed App policy" and "complete against Amazon’s rules for a children’s app" are different claims, and only the first is one Keel makes.
-
How one determination is made, carried in that rowThe nine factors for determining whether an app is directed at children
The most operational content on the page, and a developer genuinely works through all nine. They are out because they are the reasoning behind one determination rather than nine duties: an app is or is not child-directed, and there is one answer to evidence. Same call COPPA makes on the enumerated verifiable-consent methods.
-
Explains COPPA, which Keel authors as its own frameworkAmazon’s account of what COPPA requires
Reads as a list of obligations, in a policy page, addressed to the developer, so a reader may reasonably expect rows for it. It is out because those obligations are COPPA’s and Keel authors COPPA separately at 32 rows; scoring them here would ask a developer running both frameworks the same questions twice.
-
Reserves Amazon’s discretion, not a developer dutyThe final-determination reservation
The sentence with the most consequence attached to it on the whole page, since it is the one that ends with an app being suppressed. It is out because it describes what Amazon may do rather than what the developer must do, and no state of the developer’s app satisfies it.
-
Restates a duty scored elsewhere hereThe age-appropriate content bullet
Not an exclusion, and named here because the rest of that summary list IS excluded, so its treatment looks inconsistent without the reason. Age-appropriate content is the one duty stated only in the summary and elaborated in no section, so excluding the list wholesale would have dropped a real requirement.
Out of scope, on the page
Headings and quoted sentences are Amazon's own.
-
Reserves Amazon’s discretion, not a developer duty"Amazon reserves the right to make the final determination on whether an app is rejected or suppressed."
A reservation of Amazon’s discretion. There is nothing for a developer to implement against it, which is the same call Keel makes on COPPA provisions addressed to the Commission.
-
Explains COPPA, which Keel authors as its own frameworkAmazon’s description of what COPPA is and what it requires, and the outbound link to the FTC’s COPPA FAQ
Explanatory restatement of a law Keel authors in full as its own COPPA framework, including the examples of a signed consent form and a check of a parent’s government-issued identification. The operative Appstore duty, comply with COPPA and other applicable law, is scored.
-
Advice rather than a requirement"If you are unsure whether your app is child-directed, please consult an attorney."
Advice. It asks the developer to do nothing that could be marked or evidenced.
-
How one determination is made, carried in that rowThe nine factors under "Determining if Your App is Directed at Children"
Subject matter, visual content, animated characters, child-oriented activities and incentives, music and audio, the age of models, child celebrities, language complexity, and whether the app’s advertising is aimed at children. They are how ONE determination is made, and are carried in the summary of the determination row rather than scored as nine.
-
Restates a duty scored elsewhere hereThree of the four opening summary bullets
They restate the four sections. Age-appropriate content is the one duty that appears only in that list and is elaborated nowhere else, so it IS scored from the bullet; the other three are scored from their own sections instead.
Where the inventory came from
Think one of these belongs in scope? That is the point of publishing it, so tell us which line. The full framework is at Amazon Appstore Child-Directed Apps.