Tap any notice to inspect the source material supplied with this story.
01
The name
Spotify barred us from using their wordmark (Spotify) in the name
A notice identifying Spotify AB as the rights owner challenged the use of “Spotify” in Blockify’s old extension title.
The app uses the trademarks of Spotify AB … in the app’s Title.
02
The listing
Google said we had too many keywords in the page description
Google’s notice flagged repeated mentions of Spotify across Blockify’s English, Greek, and Turkish store descriptions.
Having excessive and / or irrelevant keywords in the item’s description.
03
The purpose
Google said we could block ads or promotions — not both.
Another notice treated “ad blocking” and “ad and general promotions” as unrelated functionality. We saw one job: stop ads from interrupting people.
Stated: “ad blocking” · Additional: “ad and general promotions”
THE SIZE OF THE FIGHT
This is who came for a 4-person ad blocker team.
Every crowd below is drawn to the same workforce scale. Blockify is the tiny green point.
AREA = COMPANY-WIDE WORKFORCEFY2025
GOOGLE
190,820 PEOPLE$294.7B AD REVENUE
MICROSOFT
228,000 PEOPLE$13.9B+ AD REVENUE
SPOTIFY
7,287 AVG. PEOPLE€1.836B AD REVENUE
BLOCKIFY4 PEOPLE · THE WHOLE TEAM
ALL THAT CORPORATE SCALE.AGAINST FOUR PEOPLE.
FOLLOW THE INCENTIVES
Guess who profits when ad blockers are crushed?
Their business is interruptions. Ours is stopping them.
Google made $294.7 billion from advertising in FY2025—73% of Alphabet’s $402.8 billion total revenue.
Alphabet’s own filing identifies technologies that block ads online as a business risk. When the same ecosystem controls Chrome and its store, the financial incentive to restrict ad blockers is hard to ignore.
Rules shouldn’t be misused based on profits.
That incentive does not prove why any one decision was made—and it does not make vague, disproportionate, or unfair enforcement fair.