What Keel scores in the Google Play Families policies, and what it does not
Keel scores 36 duties across Google's two Families policy pages. 9 parts of those pages are out. Google numbers nothing here, so there is no clause list to check Keel against. This page is that list.
The rule
A leaf here is one stated obligation: the smallest unit that imposes its own distinct duty with its own evidence. Enumerations of what a single duty must contain, and lists of the alternative ways one duty may be satisfied, are carried in the parent row’s summary. Anything that binds somebody other than the app developer, restates a duty scored elsewhere, or is offered as a recommendation rather than a requirement, is out.
Why nothing here has a clause number. Google publishes no clause numbers for these policies, so there is no citation to make. Any numbering Keel introduced would be a fabrication that looked exactly like a citation Google publishes. Scored rows therefore carry a slash-delimited Keel path beginning with the literal word "families", which nothing in a Google policy resembles, and the section names are the only part traceable back to the source. The same applies to this page: each entry below is Google’s own heading or sentence, quoted.
Out of scope is not the same as inapplicable. Out of scope is not the same as inapplicable. Everything on both pages governs an app in the Families program, and a developer that ignores the excluded material can still fail review. 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.
-
Google recommends it rather than requiring it Google Play Families PoliciesTelling existing users when the target age group, ads or in-app purchases change
The exclusion most worth contesting, and it is called that in the framework source too. It is a real practice a careful developer would adopt, it sits inside a policy page full of requirements, and Keel does not score it because Google wrote "we strongly recommend" rather than "you must". A reader who thinks a recommendation in a policy page is effectively mandatory has a case, and this is where to make it.
-
Binds the ads SDK vendor or serving platform, not the developer Families Self-Certified Ads SDK ProgramThe eight Self-Certified Ads SDK Requirements
Ten requirements in a document a developer must read, unscored, which is the largest single omission here. They bind the SDK vendor and the serving platform. Scoring them would load a developer’s denominator with items it cannot implement, which is the same call Keel makes on COPPA’s safe harbor programs and on GDPR Arts 40 to 43.
-
Too unspecific to evidence on its own Google Play Families Policies"You must ensure that your app properly implements any APIs and SDKs"
Written as a flat "you must", which is the wording Keel scores everywhere else. It is out because there is no state of the world that satisfies it as written and nothing to produce as evidence; the three specific sub-bullets beneath it are each scored, so the duty is not lost.
-
Restates a duty scored elsewhere here Google Play Families PoliciesThe "Key Considerations" Do / Don’t table
The most quotable part of the page and the part a developer is most likely to work from, so its absence from the scored rows is worth explaining. It restates duties scored in full elsewhere, and the page itself says the full policy takes precedence in a conflict, so scoring it would ask the same questions twice.
-
Restates a duty scored elsewhere here Google Play Families Policies"Ensure ads displayed to those users follow the Families ad format requirements"
Not an exclusion, and named here so its treatment does not read as one. It is a pointer to a section scored in full, so it is not a row of its own: scoring it would double-count nine duties as ten.
Out of scope, by section of the source
Headings and quoted sentences are Google's own.
Google Play Families Policies 5
-
Restates a duty scored elsewhere herePolicy Summary, and the closing "Key Considerations" Do / Don’t table
Both are restatements, and the page says so itself: it notes that the full policy takes precedence in a conflict. Scoring a summary of duties scored below would ask the same questions twice.
-
Google recommends it rather than requiring it"Updates to Target Audience and Content Section"
States facts (an app update is needed before a change shows on the store; changes may be reviewed before then) and one explicit recommendation, that developers tell existing users when the target age group, ads or in-app purchases change. Google writes "we strongly recommend", not "you must".
-
Restates a duty scored elsewhere here"Misrepresentation in Play Console"
Folded into the scored row for accurate Play Console answers rather than scored separately: it and the "Play Console answers" requirement state the same duty, answer accurately and keep the answers current, in two places on the page.
-
Illustrates a duty rather than adding oneThe three "Examples of common violations" blocks, and the list of inappropriate ad content categories
Illustrations of duties scored above. The ad-content categories are carried in the summary of the child-appropriate ad content row, because they are what that duty means rather than a duty of their own.
-
Too unspecific to evidence on its own"You must ensure that your app properly implements any APIs and SDKs"
The general lead-in. Too unspecific to evidence on its own, and the three sub-bullets that give it content are each scored.
Families Self-Certified Ads SDK Program 4
-
Binds the ads SDK vendor or serving platform, not the developerThe eight Self-Certified Ads SDK Requirements and the two mediation requirements
Define objectionable ad content in the SDK’s terms, rate creatives to age-appropriate groups, let publishers request child-directed treatment, offer compliant ad formats, review creatives and propagate privacy indicators in real-time bidding, provide Google with verification material, self-certify each new release. Every one of them binds the ads SDK vendor and the serving platform. What they mean for a developer is that the SDK must appear on Google’s self-certified list, and that IS scored.
-
Program administration, addressed to nobody in particularThe note that the program is not currently accepting new applicants
Program administration, together with the statement that existing participants’ obligations are unchanged. Neither asks a developer to do anything.
-
Permits rather than requiresThe two carve-outs: in-house cross-promotion, and direct deals used only for inventory management
Permissions rather than duties, and they are carried in the summary of the certified-SDK row because they change what that duty requires rather than adding one.
-
Restates a duty scored elsewhere here"It is your responsibility to ensure that all SDK versions you implement ... are compliant with all applicable policies, local laws and regulations."
A restatement of duties scored at the legal-compliance row and the three SDK-approval rows, which between them already require the developer to use only approved SDKs and to comply with applicable law.
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 Google Play Families.