Chrome's extension rules make broad permissions a liability

The workload

A solo founder shipping a browser-extension product must map every Chrome permission the extension requests against what the product actually does today, not what it might do later. Google's own Use of Permissions policy states developers must request access to the narrowest permissions necessary to implement a product's features, and if more than one permission could work, must request the one with the least access to data or functionality. The workload is an audit task repeated at every release: each new permission needs a justification tied to a shipped feature, not a planned one, because the policy explicitly rules out requesting a permission to future-proof the product.

What the documents show

Verified: the general Program Policies overview states that extensions must disclose their functionality with no surprises and must not access data beyond what is necessary to implement their functions, language that applies to the whole store, not only to permissions. The permissions-specific page narrows that principle into an operational test: least-access, no future-proofing, and a stated update stamp of 1 November 2022, which means the specific wording a developer checks their extension against may be several years old even though Chrome's review process runs continuously. Nothing in either document promises the wording will not change again without a new dated notice appearing elsewhere on the site.

The operating cost

Neither document names a listing fee for policy compliance itself, separate from Google's one-time Chrome Web Store developer registration fee, which is not covered on either policy page cited here. Editorial: the operating cost that is stated, indirectly, is rejection risk: a policy violation found at review, or through Google's ongoing enforcement after publication, can block an update or remove a listing, which for a one-person SaaS distributing primarily through a browser extension means losing the update channel to existing users, not just new acquisition. Rewriting a permissions request to comply after a rejection costs a full review cycle, whose length neither document states.

The stop condition

The documents name their own review point implicitly: a permission becomes noncompliant the moment the feature that justified it is removed or was never shipped, at which point the least-access and no-future-proofing rules apply to the current version, not to the version originally reviewed. Editorial: a practical stop condition for a solo maintainer is a permissions review at every release that removes a feature, not only at every release that adds one, since the policy language ties justification to what the product does now.

• Does every requested permission map to a feature that is live in the current release, not a planned one?
• Could a narrower permission accomplish the same feature, per the least-access rule?
• When was this policy page's language last checked against the extension's actual permission list?

Chrome's permissions policy is short, plainly worded, and dated, which is more transparency than several of the platforms in this batch offer. The obligation it creates is ongoing: a permission that was justified at launch can become a policy violation later, purely because the feature that justified it changed.