MetaMask Banned From Google Play

Notice: This page is a freshly imported case study from the original repository. The original content was in a different format, and may not have relevant information for all sections. Please help restructure the content by moving information from the 'About' section to other sections, and add any missing information or sources you can find. If you are new here, please read General Tutorial on Wikis or Anatomy of a Case Study for help getting started.

Notice: This page contains sources which are not attributed to any text. The unattributed sources follow the initial description. Please assist by visiting each source, reviewing the content, and placing that reference next to any text it can be used to support. Feel free to add any information that you come across which isn't present already. Sources which don't contain any relevant information can be removed. Broken links can be replaced with versions from the Internet Archive. See General Tutorial on Wikis, Anatomy of a Case Study, and/or Citing Your Sources Guide for additional information. Thanks for your help!

MetaMask

The MetaMask wallet application was again banned on Google Play at the end of December 2019. There were no reports of phishing versions of the application appearing in it's place this time, and no funds appear to have been taken from users. The application was reinstated around a week later.

This is a global/international case not involving a specific country.

About MetaMask

MetaMask is a "crypto wallet & gateway to blockchain apps. Start exploring blockchain applications in seconds. Trusted by over 21 million users worldwide." "Available as a browser extension and as a mobile app, MetaMask equips you with a key vault, secure login, token wallet, and token exchange—everything you need to manage your digital assets."

"Since the introduction of the Chrome Web Store in 2011, it has become the largest catalog of browser extensions with over 200,000 available to all of our users. This has helped millions of users to customize their browsing experience on Chrome in ways we could have never imagined, from niche utilities to companies building businesses around the platform’s capabilities."

"Just before the end of 2019, Google blocked MetaMask’s Android iteration from appearing on the Google Play Store. Google said that it had suspended the MetaMask Android client for violating its financial services policy. The tech giant further added that it will block all applications which enable cryptocurrency mining on mobile devices."

"Google claimed in late December that MetaMask had violated its terms of service for financial apps; it linked MetaMask to mobile mining." "Google Play, the official app store for the Android operating system which is used by billions of mobile devices around the world and operated by Google, has banned the crypto app Metamask. The company pointed its restricted content policy on apps that expose users to deceptive or harmful financial products and services as a reason for the ban."

"The move to ban Metamask from the Play Store comes at an especially tense time between Google and the crypto community. This is because only recently the google-owned video sharing website Youtube has removed content and banned channels that promote or otherwise analyze the digital asset markets. The company has since claimed this was done by mistake and reinstated some channels but the risk it poses to the ability to spread news ideas have already become clear."

"MetaMask says that they do not perform mining operations on the device, and that this is simply an attempt on Google’s part to inhibit the adoption of Web3 standards, citing a previous incident where their Chrome browser extension was also temporarily delisted."

"The company had appealed Google’s decision to no avail." "Google told MetaMask at the time of the ban that it forbids mining on mobile platforms; a service MetaMask says it doesn’t offer."

"The appeal rejection cited the same policy: No mining on @Android. We don't. It's unclear whether the reviewer doesn't understand the policy, or whether they are enforcing an unwritten policy. Either way, it's time to #ProtectWeb3."

"[P]lease, speak out, and show Google that you will not support a platform that censors disintermediation. Plenty of other great browsers out there with @Firefox and @brave. Some nice YouTube alternatives are coming around, too."

"MetaMask co-lead developer Dan Findlay told Cointelegraph:"

“I very much hope that this was an honest mistake on the part of Google's reviewers, but in combination with all the crypto YouTube bans, it definitely puts me at disease about how Google is engaging with decentralizing technologies. If people accept this behavior from a mobile monopoly like Google, we may not deserve something better.”

“If left banned, we will be working on other ways of bringing our services to users still stranded on the Android platform while they migrate to something more free,” the Metamask team stated on Twitter. “The story will not stop here, and it certainly won’t stop with the Goliath winning.”

"MetaMask’s Twitter outrage caught the eyes of the Google Play development team which promised to intervene and escalate the issue."

"Hi , thanks for reaching out. We have escalated your issue to the relevant team for further investigation. We appreciate your patience while we are looking into this."

"Happy New Year! Upon careful consideration, Google has permitted The MetaMask mobile app back on the Google Play (Android) store! Thanks to all the believers in an open web for speaking out in our support!"

This is a global/international case not involving a specific country.

The background of the exchange platform, service, or individuals involved, as it would have been seen or understood at the time of the events.

Include:

• Known history of when and how the service was started.
• What problems does the company or service claim to solve?
• What marketing materials were used by the firm or business?
• Audits performed, and excerpts that may have been included.
• Business registration documents shown (fake or legitimate).
• How were people recruited to participate?
• Public warnings and announcements prior to the event.

Don't Include:

• Any wording which directly states or implies that the business is/was illegitimate, or that a vulnerability existed.
• Anything that wasn't reasonably knowable at the time of the event.

There could be more than one section here. If the same platform is involved with multiple incidents, then it can be linked to a main article page.

The Reality

This sections is included if a case involved deception or information that was unknown at the time. Examples include:

• When the service was actually started (if different than the "official story").
• Who actually ran a service and their own personal history.
• How the service was structured behind the scenes. (For example, there was no "trading bot".)
• Details of what audits reported and how vulnerabilities were missed during auditing.

What Happened

The specific events of the loss and how it came about. What actually happened to cause the loss and some of the events leading up to it.

Key Event Timeline - MetaMask Banned From Google Play

Date	Event	Description
December 26th, 2019 1:39:00 PM MST	Main Event	Expand this into a brief description of what happened and the impact. If multiple lines are necessary, add them here.

Technical Details

This section includes specific detailed technical analysis of any security breaches which happened. What specific software vulnerabilities contributed to the problem and how were they exploited?

Total Amount Lost

The total amount lost is unknown.

How much was lost and how was it calculated? If there are conflicting reports, which are accurate and where does the discrepancy lie?

Immediate Reactions

How did the various parties involved (firm, platform, management, and/or affected individual(s)) deal with the events? Were services shut down? Were announcements made? Were groups formed?

Ultimate Outcome

What was the end result? Was any investigation done? Were any individuals prosecuted? Was there a lawsuit? Was any tracing done?

Total Amount Recovered

There do not appear to have been any funds recovered in this case.

What funds were recovered? What funds were reimbursed for those affected users?

Ongoing Developments

What parts of this case are still remaining to be concluded?

Individual Prevention Policies

No specific policies for individual prevention have yet been identified in this case.

For the full list of how to protect your funds as an individual, check our Prevention Policies for Individuals guide.

Platform Prevention Policies

Policies for platforms to take to prevent this situation have not yet been selected in this case.

For the full list of how to protect your funds as a financial service, check our Prevention Policies for Platforms guide.

Regulatory Prevention Policies

No specific regulatory policies have yet been identified in this case.

For the full list of regulatory policies that can prevent loss, check our Prevention Policies for Regulators guide.