AppReviewFix
Guideline library
Google Play — Technical Compliance

SDK Requirements — Third-party SDK compliance

Official source: Google Play Developer Program PoliciesTopic overview: The review process, app quality and enforcement
What this guideline means

Google holds the app developer accountable for any policy violation caused by a bundled SDK — ad networks, analytics tools, crash reporters — regardless of whether the developer wrote or controls that code.

Why apps actually get flagged

Very commonly triggered when an ad mediation SDK updates itself and starts requesting a new permission or sending data the developer never configured or reviewed.

A real example

"Your app contains an SDK that violates Google Play policy. As the app's developer, you are responsible for ensuring all SDKs used comply with policy, per the SDK Requirements."

The short version, in more detail

Google holds the app developer accountable for any policy violation caused by a bundled SDK, whether it is an ad network, analytics tool or crash reporter, and whether or not the developer wrote it. A typical case is an ad mediation SDK that updates itself and starts asking for a new permission or sending data the developer never configured or reviewed.

Why this rule exists

Modern apps are largely assembled from third-party code, and users cannot see which libraries are inside an app. Because the developer chooses and ships each component, Google treats them as part of the app. The policy encourages developers to know what their dependencies do and to keep control over updates, since a change in a library can alter privacy and safety without a single line of the developer's own code changing.

What this guideline covers

  • Ad, analytics, crash-reporting and other SDKs.
  • Data collected and permissions added by libraries.
  • Updates to SDKs after the app is released.
  • Programme requirements for certain SDKs.

What usually triggers this rejection

  • An SDK update that adds a permission.
  • A library sending data not described in the privacy information.
  • An outdated SDK with known policy issues.
  • A bundled SDK that violates ad or malware policies.
  • Components whose behaviour was never reviewed by the developer.

How reviewers evaluate it

  • Automated analysis identifies SDKs and their behaviour.
  • Google can flag known problematic SDK versions.
  • Violations are treated as the app's violations.
  • The developer is notified and expected to respond.

Common misunderstandings

  • Using a popular SDK does not guarantee compliance.
  • Responsibility does not move to the SDK vendor.
  • A library's behaviour can change when it updates.

Common questions

How do I know what an SDK collects?

Vendor documentation and data-safety guidance usually describe it, and testing can confirm it.

Does Google warn about bad SDKs?

It identifies problematic versions and can notify affected developers.

Is this related to the Data Safety form?

Yes. SDK data counts as the app's data in that form.

Platform rules change often. This page is a plain-language explanation written by AppReviewFix, not official guidance. Check the current Google Play Developer Policy Center for the exact wording.

Got this exact rejection?Paste it in and get a diagnosis specific to your app, free.
Decode my rejection
Related guidelines
2.5.1 — Public APIs only2.5.2 — Self-contained apps2.5.3 — Malware transmission2.5.4 — Multitasking background servicesMalware — Malware policy
AppReviewFix
ProductDecoderPricingGuideline library
CompanyAboutFAQContact
ResourcesGuidesTopic overviewsCommon rejection reasons
LegalTermsPrivacy
© 2026 AppReviewFixBuilt by a developer, not a committee.